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 15 March 2013 in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country S as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player L

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 15 March 2013 in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country S as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player L I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Association the player L (hereinafter: the player), born in November 1990, was registered with Club A, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 9 March 2010 until 24 January 2011 as an amateur. 2. The sporting season in country B follows the calendar year. 3. According to a written confirmation of the country S Football Association the player was registered with the Club F, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 1 February 2011 as a professional. 4. The country S Football Association confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA). 5. On 2 September 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is requesting EUR 26,175 “plus an interest rate calculated since the date in which the payment should be made, which is 30 days after his registration with the country S Football Association” as well as procedural costs. 6. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent held that it should not be held liable to pay any amount corresponding to training compensation in connection with the transfer at hand. In particular, it referred to a “contract on mediation and cooperation” concluded on 1 January 2011 between the Respondent and “Mr H, Scouting, consultancy”. According to art. II of the aforementioned contract “The mediator is committed to the Club F will have no financial costs associated with engaging the player (such as training compensation, solidarity payment, the amount of a transfer fee and other fees). In the event that Club F incurred unexpected financial costs associated with engaging the above player, the mediator declares that all such costs”. 7. Bearing in mind the aforementioned article, the Respondent claims that it should not be obliged to pay training compensation in connection with the present transfer and that “the only person who has obligation to pay training compensation in the relevant case in accordance with the terms of contract on mediation is: Mr. H - Scouting, consultancy”, who should equally pay the relevant procedural costs. 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 2 September 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 1 February 2011 as well as the fact that the present claim was lodged on 2 September 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 2010 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 and, in this respect, it 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, according to the player passport issued by the country B Football Association, the player was born on 29 November 1990 and was registered with the Claimant as from 9 March 2010 until 24 January 2011 as an amateur. 6. Moreover, the Chamber noted that, as confirmed by the country S Football Association , the player was registered with the Respondent on 1 February 2011 as a professional. 7. In continuation, the Chamber took note that, on 2 September 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, requesting from the latter the payment of training compensation for the period of 9 March 2010 until 24 January 2011, in the amount of EUR 26,175 “plus an interest rate calculated since the date in which the payment should be made, which is 30 days after his registration with the country S Football Association” as well as procedural costs. 8. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent, based on the “contract on mediation and cooperation” signed on 1 January 2011 between the Respondent and Mr H, Scouting, consultancy and in particular on its art. II, rejected the Claimant’s claim and asserted that it should not be held responsible for the payment of any amount related to training compensation in connection with the transfer at hand and that the agent Mr H would be responsible to pay training compensation to the Claimant, since he assured by signing the “contract on mediation and cooperation” that no financial costs such as training compensation would arise in connection with the transfer of the player. 9. In this context and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Chamber stated 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 his 23rd birthday. 10. Moreover, the DRC recalled that in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, on registering as a professional for the first time, the club with which the player is registered is responsible to pay training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. 11. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized that, in strict application of the rules pertaining to training compensation, it is thus the new club of the player who is responsible for the payment of training compensation to the previous clubs of the player that have in fact trained him. 12. At this point, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the circumstances of the present case, in particular the argumentation of the Respondent, according to which it should not be held responsible to pay training compensation to the Claimant, since as per the “contract on mediation and cooperation” of 1 January 2011, such responsibility should be borne by Mr H, Scouting, consulting. 13. In this context, the DRC also recalled the particular wording of art. II of the “contract on mediation and cooperation”, which stipulates that “The mediator is committed to the Club F will have no financial costs associated with engaging the player (such as training compensation, solidarity payment, the amount of a transfer fee and other fees). In the event that the Club F incurred unexpected financial costs associated with engaging the above player, the mediator declares that all such costs”. 14. In view of the aforementioned regulations and of the particular context of the present case, the members of the Chamber found it vital to underline that the obligation of the new club towards the previous club(s) to pay training compensation cannot be transferred to a third party by means of a private agreement which disposes of a right of the Claimant established in the FIFA Regulations. In other words, any obligation transferred to a third party in virtue of an agreement, which in any case shall have effect inter partes, i.e. between the parties to this agreement, cannot discharge the new club of its obligation to distribute training compensation to the training club(s). 15. In this respect, the DRC considered that the agreement which the Respondent had concluded with Mr H in the present matter could not be held against the Claimant nor set aside the relevant provisions regarding training compensation contained in the Regulations, which, amongst other, establish that on registering a professional for the first time, the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation (cf. art 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations). Thus, the DRC concluded that the argumentation of the Respondent could not be sustained and, consequently, had to be rejected. 16. Therefore, and since it was undisputed by the parties that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. in conjunction with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 17. 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. 18. In this respect, the members of the Chamber duly noted that, according to the documentation on file, it would be established that the player in question, born on 29 November 1990, had been registered with the Claimant as from 9 March 2010 until 24 January 2011 as an amateur and that on 1 February 2011 he was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent, which belonged to category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA). 19. 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 11 months. 20. Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements as well as the Claimant’s claim, 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 9 March 2010 until 24 January 2011, during the seasons of the player’s 20th and 21st birthday, i.e. for 11 months, in the amount of EUR 26,175. 21. 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 of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of 4 March 2011 until the date of effective payment. 22. With regard to the Claimant’s claim for the reimbursement of legal expenses, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which clearly stipulates that no procedural compensation shall be 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. 23. In continuation, the DRC 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 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 and that, 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. 24. In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 26,175 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 25. 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 currency of country H 3,000. 26. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings in front of FIFA. 27. In conclusion, the DRC decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 26,175 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 4 March 2011 until the date of effective payment to the Claimant for the training and education of the player as well as the amount of currency of country H 3,000 as procedural costs. 28. 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, Club A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club F, has to pay to the Claimant, Club A, the amount of EUR 26,175 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 March 2011 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 currency of country H 3,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, Club F, to FIFA within 30 days of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXX: 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club A, are rejected. 6. The Claimant, Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club F, 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