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 27 February 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club K, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player M

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 27 February 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club K, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player M I. Facts of the case 1. The country P Football Association confirmed that the player M (hereinafter: the player), born in February 1990, was registered with its affiliated Club K, from country P (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 13 August 2008 until 7 October 2008 as an amateur and from 8 October 2008 until 30 June 2011 as a professional. 2. The football season in country P lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. According to a written confirmation of the country G Football Association, the player was registered with its affiliated Club S (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 19 July 2011 as a professional. 4. The country P Football Association confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA) during the time when the player was registered with it. 5. The country G Football Association confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with the club. 6. On 27 October 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting the training compensation for the transfer of the player to the Respondent, for an amount of EUR 60,000. 7. In its reply, the Respondent stated that the player did not receive his salary from the Claimant during the last six months of his contract, which is why the contract between the Claimant and the player was terminated. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had allegedly promised to the player that it would waive its right to receive training compensation if he would waive his claim regarding the outstanding salaries. The Respondent also stated that it signed the contract with the player based on these presumptions. 9. In its replica, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent did not provide any proof for its allegations regarding the alleged waiver of the Claimant’s right to claim training compensation. 10. In this regard, the Claimant stated that as from the beginning of April 2011 it was in negotiations with the player’s agent J (hereinafter: the player’s agent) to find an agreement on the renewal of the contract for the period of two more years, offering an “increase of contract by about 25% also offering him paid apartment”. 11. In this context, the player’s agent sent a statement to FIFA by means of which he confirmed having informed the player about the offer and indicating that the parties agreed that in the near future they would meet to discuss the details. In this regard, the Claimant states that “as we were satisfied of the progress of the player, on April 2011 we have made an offer in writing to the player to renew his contract with our Club, but the offer remained unanswered by the player”. In this respect, the Claimant provided an undated receipt of letter notice, allegedly issued when the alleged contract offer was sent to the player. 12. In addition to that, the player’s agent allegedly also informed the Claimant that the player was willing to renew his contract with it before the player signed with the Respondent. 13. In its final position, the Respondent reiterated its previous argumentation. 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 27 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to adjudicate on a dispute relating to training compensation between a country P club and a country G 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 2010 and 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 27 October 2011 and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 19 July 2011, the 2010 edition of 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 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 13 August 2008 until 7 October 2008 and as a professional as from 8 October 2008 until 30 June 2011, and that he was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 19 July 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 60,000, based on the 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, indicating that the player did not receive any salary during the last six months of his contract, which is why the employment contract between the player and the Claimant had been terminated. The Chamber also took note that, according to the Respondent, the Claimant waived its right to receive training compensation during the course of the termination negotiations with the player and that the new employment contract between the player and the Respondent was allegedly based on these presumptions. However, the Chamber also took note that the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s allegations stressing that it had never waived its right to receive training compensation. 8. Furthermore, regarding art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber acknowledged the Claimant’s argumentation as well as the statement provided by the player’s agent, according to which the Claimant allegedly was in negotiations with the player and the player’s agent regarding the renewal of the player’s contract with improved conditions. In relation to this, the Chamber particularly examined the “letter of notice receipt” provided by the Claimant, which according to the Claimant, proved that a concrete contract offer was sent to the player by the Claimant. 9. On the ground of these presumptions and based on the documents provided by the parties, 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, did the Claimant waive its right to receive training compensation from the Respondent? 10. From 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). 11. 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 inside the territory of the EU/EEA before the end of the seasons of his 23rd birthday and that, therefore, in principle, a payment of training compensation would be due. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is applicable to the present dispute, stipulating additional prerequisites for the entitlement to such compensation. 13. The Chamber subsequently recalled the content of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that 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. 14. The Chamber then took note that the Claimant argued that it offered a contract extension to the player via the player’s agent via registered mail in April 2011, which would allegedly have been of greater value than the current contract of the player and which would have been sent more than 60 days before the expiration of the player’s previous employment contract. 15. In this respect, the DRC first recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 16. In relation to the preceding paragraph, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence regarding the alleged contract offer. The Chamber particularly emphasised that, from the undated “receipt of letter notice” as provided by the Claimant as evidence, it could not be established what the contents of said letter to the player’s agent had been, when it had been sent and whether the player’s agent was indeed the agent of the player. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had neither presented a copy of the relevant employment contract nor a copy of the contract offer allegedly made. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that it could not be established that the Claimant offered a contract to the player in accordance with the prerequisites as stipulated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber decided that the Claimant was not entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 17. On account of the above conclusion, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant and deemed it not necessary to enter into the substance of the other arguments raised during the present proceedings. 18. 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 in relation to disputes regarding training compensation, 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). 19. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 20. 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. 21. On that basis, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 60,000, 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 10,000. 22. Considering the particularities of the case at hand as well as the complexity of the case, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 8,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club K, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 8,000 are to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 2,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the amount of currency of country H 6,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: ** 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