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 7 June 2013 in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the club, Club R, from country B as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club Z, from country N as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player E

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 7 June 2013 in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the club, Club R, from country B as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club Z, from country N as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Association the player, E (hereinafter: the player), born in August 1987, was registered with the country B clubs as follows: Registration period Club Player’s status 3 July 2003 - 30 June 2004 Club R amateur 1 July 2004 - 23 January 2006 Club R professional 24 January 2006 - 4 December 2006 Club S (on loan) professional 5 December 2006 - 9 January 2007 Club R professional 10 January 2007 - 10 July 2007 Club Z professional 11 July 2007 - 23 July 2007 Club R professional 2. The sporting season in country B follows the calendar year. 3. According to a written statement of the country N Football Association the player was registered with the Club Z, from country N (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter- Claimant), on 22 January 2007 as a professional. Furthermore, it stated that the player has never been registered on a loan basis with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 4. The country N Football Association confirmed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during the season 2006/2007. 5. On 20 May 2009, Club R (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent/Counter- Claimant in the amount of EUR 161,754.44 plus 5% interest p.a. as from August 2007. 6. In its claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that the player was first transferred on 10 January 2007 from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on a loan basis, for a period of six months without the payment of a transfer fee. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further states that, on 24 July 2007, the player was definitely transferred to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, after having terminated his employment contract with the Claimant/Counter- Respondent. 7. In support of its allegations, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided FIFA with the following documentation: a. a letter dated 18 January 2007, sent to the country B Football Association and signed by the president of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the director of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the player, according to which “the athlete Player N (…) has a contract in force with Club R (…) from 02 January 2007 to 02 January 2009. (…) the loan contract is free of charge for the period comprehended between 10 January 2007 to 10 July 2007 with a monthly wage or EUR 2,000”; b. a termination agreement (“acknowledgement of debt”) dated 18 July 2007 signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and Mr B, the player’s father, which establishes the following: “Taking into account the fact that the Sportsman Player E has no interest in continuing his employment contract with Club R, and, considering the fact that his father wishes to offer the sum of U$ 50,000 (fifty thousand dollars) to the club to grant the certificate releasing him and rescinding his employment contract on this date, the parties sign this instrument irreversibly and irrevocably.” 8. In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claiming that the player was under contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant since 10 January 2007 on a permanent basis, i.e. the player was allegedly never registered with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a loan basis. 9. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that the player signed his first professional contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 10 January 2007, for which reason the claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 20 May 2009 should be considered as prescribed, in line with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). 10. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged that, if FIFA would be of the opinion that the player was playing for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a loan basis, from January to July 2007, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has already received compensation for the training of the player, since the latter had to pay a penalty in the amount of USD 50,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the early termination of the contract. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that it should not be obliged to pay any training compensation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 11. In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant also enclosed a copy of the termination agreement signed between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the player’s father (cf. point I.7.b. above), as well as copies of two employment contracts concluded with the player, one dated 10 January 2007 for the period of 1 January 2007 until 30 June 2007 and the other one dated 16 May 2007 for the period of 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2008. 12. Additionally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant asserted that, should FIFA decide to take into account the information contained in the player passport issued by the country B Football Association, this would be a case of “subsequent transfer”, according to art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In such cases, training compensation is only due to the previous club of the player for the time he was effectively trained by that club. In this context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that it should only be obliged to pay training compensation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the period from 11 July 2007 until 23 July 2007. 13. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that, should FIFA consider that the player was on loan with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as from 10 January 2007 until 10 July 2007, it lodges a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, requesting the amount of EUR 45,000 as training compensation for the aforementioned period, based on the player’s transfer from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 11 July 2007, according to the country B player passport. 14. In its replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, its employment contract with the player was valid until January 2009, and from 10 January 2007 until 10 July 2007 the player had been loaned to the Respondent/Counter- Claimant. In this context, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that "the player has never been transferred from Club Z to Club R. On 11 July 2007, the player returned to Club R after the final term of his loan period with the country N club, which means that no transfer has occurred - the parties were only complying with the loan agreement". 15. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent pointed out that "Immediately after the early and unjustified termination of his contract, the player was definitely registered by Club Z in the country N Football Association as a free player, despite the fact that, during the loan period, Club Z has never formally manifested its intention to hire the player on a definitive basis". 16. For all the aforementioned reasons, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent adhered to its claim, asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent/Counter- Claimant. 17. In its duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant referred to its previous statements. 18. In its last position on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained its previous argumentation. 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 20 May 2009. 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 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. The Chamber continued to analyse which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect and in accordance with art. 26 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012; hereinafter: the Regulations), the members of the DRC pointed out that, in order to establish which edition of the regulations is to be applied in the case at hand, the date of the event giving rise to the present dispute must be determined. 4. In this context, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is due when the player is registered for the first time as a professional, or if a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different associations (whether during or at the end of his contract) before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. Therefore, in the present matter, the dispute must be assessed according to the regulations that were in force when the professional was registered with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 5. In this respect, the DRC noted, however, that there appears to be a discrepancy between the registration dates of the player as indicated by the Claimant/Counter- Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 6. Turning its attention to the evidence on file, the members of the Chamber noted that, while the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the date of the definitive transfer of the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was the 23 July 2007 and that between 10 January 2007 and 10 July 2007 the player was on loan with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the latter states that the definitive transfer of the player already took place on 10 January 2007 and, thus, he was never on loan with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 7. In continuation, the DRC noted that in support of its argumentation, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided a copy of the player’s passport issued by the country B Football Association, according to which the player was loaned to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant between 10 January 2007 and 10 July 2007, as well as of a letter dated 18 January 2007, signed by the president of the Claimant/Counter- Respondent, the director of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the player, which established that “the athlete Player E (…) has a contract in force with Club R (…) from 02 January 2007 to 02 January 2009. (…) the loan contract is free of charge for the period comprehended between 10 January 2007 to 10 July 2007 with a monthly wage or EUR 2,000”. 8. Subsequently, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant equally provided documental evidence of its position, namely a declaration of the country N Football Association, dated 21 September 2010, according to which the player has never been registered on a loan basis for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, and the copy of the agreement dated 18 July 2007 signed by the Claimant/Counter- Respondent and Mr B, which states that “Taking into account the fact that the Sportsman Player N has no interest in continuing his employment contract with Club R, and, considering the fact that his father wishes to offer the sum of U$ 50,000 (fifty thousand dollars) to the club to grant the certificate releasing him and rescinding his employment contract on this date, the parties sign this instrument irreversibly and irrevocably.” 9. In view of the aforementioned arguments and documentation provided by the parties and of the discrepant information provided by the country B Football Association and the country N Football Association, the DRC deemed that the document dated 18 January 2007 was to be considered as fundamental to determine the registration date of the player. 10. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that since the aforementioned document, dated 18 January 2007, is signed by both clubs and the player, clearly indicates who is loaning and who is receiving the player, on loan, the duration of and the compensation for the loan, as well as the player’s remuneration for such period, this letter contains all elements of a loan agreement and has, therefore, to be considered as such. 11. What is more, according to an agreement signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the player, dated 18 July 2007 and submitted to FIFA by the Respondent/Counter- Claimant, the signing parties decided to terminate the employment contract (cf. points I.7.b. and I.11. above). In this regard, the DRC had to assume that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was duly aware of the player being still contractually bound to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 12. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber concluded that during the period as from 10 January 2007 until 10 July 2007 the player was registered with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a temporary basis. 13. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the definitive registration of the player with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had occurred after the termination of his employment contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 14. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Association, the player was registered with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as from 11 July 2007 until 23 July 2007, after returning from the loan with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, as established in the letter of 18 January 2007 (cf. point I.7.a. above). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the definitive transfer of the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant took place one day after the last registration day of the player with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, i.e. on the 24 July 2007. 15. In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2005; hereinafter: the Regulations), the 2005 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 16. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC focused on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s objection, according to which the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would not be admissible, since it was submitted more than two years after the event giving rise to the dispute, taking into account the argument that the player’s definitive registration with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would have been concluded on 10 January 2007. 17. In view of the objection of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Chamber stated that prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter, the DRC must verify whether it would be able to deal with the present affair or not for formal reasons. 18. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, in connection with the Procedural Rules, which stipulate that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 19. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to the conclusions of its previous analysis on the player’s definitive registration with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (cf. points II.6. to II.14. above), according to which the player was to be considered registered with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a permanent basis on 24 July 2007, in line with the information contained in the player’s passport issued by the country B Football Association, the document dated 18 January 2007 and the agreement of 18 July 2007. 20. Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded that, in casu, and, in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the payment of training compensation fell due on 24 August 2007, i.e. 31 days after the registration of the player within the country N Football Association, and that this date was the starting point of the time period of two years set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. Equally, the Chamber held that the time period of two years had elapsed, in casu, on 25 August 2009. 21. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that, considering the date of the player’s registration with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, i.e. 24 July 2007, and the date on which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged its claim, i.e. 20 May 2009, the latter was lodged within two years since the event giving rise to the dispute and, consequently, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s objection regarding the prescription of the claim. 22. Having established that the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is admissible, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter and, in this respect, it proceeded in the analysis of the argumentation and documentation provided by both parties in the context of the present affair. 23. With due consideration to the above, the members of the Chamber wished to recall that, as established in art. 20 as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. Moreover, in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, in case of subsequent transfers of the professional training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 24. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates that professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said article stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism. 25. In this context, the members of the DRC turned their attention to the argument raised by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant according to which, should the DRC decide to take into account the information contained in the player passport issued by the country B Football Association, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would only be entitled to training compensation for the period as from 11 July 2007 until 23 July 2007, since the chain of entitlement had been broken on 10 January 2007, as the player was transferred to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, causing the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to be deprived of its potential entitlement to claim training compensation for any period of time prior to such transfer. 26. In this respect, the Chamber stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that the training clubs which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 until the age of 21 (unless it is evident that the player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21) are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them. 27. At this point, the members of the Chamber deemed it essential to emphasize that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which a player is loaned to a club and, thus, is not definitively transferred to it. In other words, the transfer of a player from his club of origin to the club that accepts him on loan, as well as the return of this player from the club that accepted him on loan to his club of origin, do not constitute “subsequent transfers” in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Chamber was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (i.e. art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in official matches for another club in order to develop in a positive way. 28. Hence, the DRC reiterated that for the purposes of the provisions of the Regulations governing the payment of training compensation, the loan of a young player from his club of origin to other clubs does not interrupt the ongoing training period of the player and the obligation to pay training compensation arises only in case a player is transferred on a definitive basis, with the effect that, at that moment, the club which transferred the player on a loan basis to another club is entitled to training compensation for the entire period of time during which it effectively trained the player, excluding, however, the period of time of the loan. 29. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the members of the Chamber concluded, in line with the considerations made in points II.6. to II.14. above, that the loan of the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 10 January 2007 did not break the chain of entitlement to training compensation, as a player’s temporary transfer to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended) does not trigger the application of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 30. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concurred that it had to reject the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s argumentation in relation to art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and establish that, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to claim training compensation for entire period during which the player was registered with it, until his definitive transfer to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 24 July 2007. 31. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, 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. 32. In this respect, the members of the Chamber duly noted that, according to the documentation on file, the player, born in August 1987, had been registered with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent from 3 July 2003 until 30 June 2004 as an amateur, from 1 July 2004 until 23 January 2006, from 5 December 2006 until 9 January 2007 and from 11 July 2007 until 23 July 2007, as a professional, and that on 24 July 2007 he was registered as a professional with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, which belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA). 33. 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 32 months. 34. Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements as well as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, the DRC decided that the Claimant/Counter- Respondent was entitled to receive training compensation for the training and education of the player for the period of time as from 3 July 2003 (the season of the player’s 16th birthday) until 23 January 2006 (the season of the player’s 19th birthday), 5 December 2006 (the season of the player’s 19th birthday) until 9 January 2007 (the season of the player’s 20th birthday) and as from 11 July 2007 until 23 July 2007 (the season of the player’s 20th birthday), i.e. for 32 months, in the total amount of EUR 160,000. 35. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation, as of 24 August 2007 until the date of effective payment. 36. In continuation, the members of the Chamber proceeded to analyse the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the payment of training compensation for the period of 10 January 2007 until 10 July 2007, in the amount of EUR 45,000, in connection with the transfer of the player to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 11 July 2007. 37. In this respect, the DRC referred to its previous considerations (cf. points II.23. to II.30. above) and reiterated that the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan, as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin, do not constitute “subsequent transfers” in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 38. Therefore, since the player was still contractually bound to the Claimant/Counter- Respondent during the loan period between 10 January 2007 and 10 July 2007, by having a valid employment contract until 2 January 2009 and no transfer in the sense of art. 2 par. 1 ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations having occurred from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 11 July 2007, the Chamber considered that the prerequisites to claim training compensation are not fulfilled and, therefore, decided to reject the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim. 39. 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. 40. 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 161,754.44 related to the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 41. Considering that the case at hand did show factual difficulty as well as legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 15,000. 42. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent paid advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural Rules. 43. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to cover the costs of the present proceedings. Thereof the amount of currency of country H 10,000 has to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to FIFA and the amount of currency of country H 5,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 44. In conclusion, the DRC decided that the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay the amount of EUR 160,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 24 August 2007 until the date of effective payment to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the training and education of the player as well as the amount of currency of country H 15,000 as procedural costs. 45. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by deciding that any further claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected and that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club R, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club R, is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club Z, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter- Respondent, Club R, the amount of EUR 160,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 August 2007 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 4. 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. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club R, are rejected. 6. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club Z, is rejected. 7. The final amount of costs of the proceeding in the amount of currency of country H 15,000 is to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club Z, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 7.1 The amount of currency of country H 10,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. [XX-XXXXX]: 7.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 directly to the Claimant/Counter- Respondent,Club R. 8. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club R, is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club Z, 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives