F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club O, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club O, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player C I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Confederation on 24 May 2012, the player C (hereinafter: the player), born in August 1992, was registered with the Club O, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 1 January 2004 until 31 December 2007 as an amateur. 2. The sporting season in country B runs from 1 January until 31 December. 3. According to the player passport issued by the country I Football Federation, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter also: “the Respondent”), on 18 August 2010 as a “non-amateur”. Equally, the player was registered with Club N, from country I as from 16 January 2009 until 4 August 2010 as an amateur. 4. The country I Football Federation further confirmed that Club A belonged to the club category I at the time the player was registered with Club A. 5. On 17 August 2012, Club O lodged a claim in front of FIFA against Club A claiming the payment of training compensation in the amount of EUR 298,750 plus interest from the latter. Club O explained that, on 10 May 2011, it requested Club A to pay training compensation in the amount of EUR 61,250 based on a different player passport issued by the country B Football Confederation on 4 May 2011, which confirmed that the player was registered with Club O as from 26 April 2007 until 31 December 2007. Club O indicated that Club A paid said amount, albeit 9 months late. 6. In continuation, Club O explained that, on 24 May 2012, the country B Football Confederation corrected the player passport and, as a result, Club O requested an additional payment of EUR 298,750 from Club A, however, such request was denied by the latter. 7. To its claim, Club O enclosed a statement of the player who confirmed that he had played for Club O between 2004 and 2007 as well as a statement of the City P Football Federation confirming such information. The latter statement reads, inter alia, as follows: “To date, the legal representative of the club provided the City P Football Federation with documents regarding the athlete [the player], which was done in order to confirm that the player was linked to the junior categories of [the club], during the season 2004 to 2007”. 8. In its reply to the claim, Club A explained that it entered into an employment contract with the player on 18 August 2010 and that, prior to entering into said employment contract, the player had informed Club A that he had been registered in country B as an amateur as from 2007 only. On 10 May 2011, the representative of Club O contacted Club A, provided the player passport dated 4 May 2011 and, as a result, Club A paid the amount of EUR 61,000 to Club O on 31 May 2011. 9. Club A indicated that it was only on 28 May 2012 that the representative of Club O reverted to Club A requesting an additional payment of training compensation on the basis of a new player passport, which, according to Club A, had been amended on the basis of a declaration of the player who had apparently suddenly realised that his registration with Club O had started on 1 January 2004. 10. Club A rejects that it has to pay any additional amount of training compensation and stressed that the invoice provided by Club O on 12 May 2011 reads as follows: “In accordance with your letter as of 11 May 2011 concerning the training compensation of player (…) 61.000 Euros (…) to be paid to (…)”. In Club A’s view, this means that the amount it paid represented, according to Club O, the entire amount of training compensation. 11. Furthermore, Club A holds that the relationship between the player and the agent of the player must be considered in the framework of the newly issued player passport. In this respect, Club A provides the following timeline: - 16 May 2012: the agent collected the player’s signature for the termination of the contract with Club A; - 16 May 2012: the agent and the player entered into an “agency agreement”; - 24 May 2012: the second player passport is issued by the country B Football Confederation; - 25 May 2012: the second mandate is issued by Club O to the agent; - 28 May 2012: the agent requests the additional payment of training compensation from Club A. 12. Club A asserted that the second player passport was only released after the agent of the player had contacted the City P Football Federation providing them with the declaration of the player. As a result, the country B Football Confederation issued the second player passport. Club A deems that the second version of the player passport was unlawfully released and was created on the basis of an invalid source of proof, i.e. on the declaration of the player, who at that time, had already returned to country B. Therefore, Club A is of the firm opinion that the second player passport must be declared invalid. 13. In continuation, Club A stressed the importance of the player passport; a player passport has the purpose to officially certify the career of a player, it must be constructed on the basis of the effective records, i.e. on a documentary basis, and the debtor has the right to know the amount to be paid to the creditor and vice versa. As a consequence, by sending the claim and the first player passport in May 2011, Club O approved and confirmed the truthfulness of the data related to the presence of the player in Club O. Equally, Club O accepted the payment by Club A and released a full quittance as Club O perfectly knew that the player passport was issued in conformity with its records. 14. Thus, Club A held that “the final and releasing quittance given by Club O to Club A after the payment of EUR 61,000 impedes a new demand for the same title. Actually, a full release of a debt does represent a mutual agreement between parties and does contain a final renunciation to claim other demands with the same title.” Club O accepted without any reservation the content of the first player passport, did not contact the player or the country B Football Confederation at that time and such a mistake is exclusively attributable to Club O. Club A relied on the information of the country B Football Confederation, Club O and the player, the latter having confirmed his registration details to Mr G of Club A. 15. Additionally, Club A argued that the claim lodged by Club O is time-barred since no complete claim was filed on 17 August 2012. 16. In its replica, Club O denied that the termination of the player’s contract with Club A as well as the representation agreement signed between the player and the agent have anything to do with the payment of training compensation. 17. Equally, Club O questioned the accuracy of Mr G’s witness statement and rejected the allegations that it has “fabricated” the second player passport; the country B Football Confederation and the City P Football Federation issued the passport “based on facts and supported by the rules in force.” 18. In its duplica, Club A reiterated its previous arguments and once more pointed out the short period of time that elapsed between the occurrence of the various contractual relationships between Club O, the player and the agent. 19. Finally, Club A indicated that the player was registered with Club N in 2008 and that, when Club A registered the player, it was acknowledged that the player had never been registered with a foreign association. This explains why Club A never contacted Club O or the country B Football Confederation at that time. In this respect, Club A provided a letter of the country I Football Federation dated 16 January 2009 addressed to Club N stating that it i) considered the request (for registration) made by Club N, ii) confirmed that the player was “never registered to foreign associations” and iii) that “the registration of the player (…) is effective from 16 January 2009”. 20. Upon request of FIFA to clarify the discrepancies between the two player passports, the country B Football Confederation answered that the player passport of 4 May 2011 was issued on the basis of a statement of the City P Football Federation of 8 February 2011. Thereafter, in March 2012, Club O presented documentation to the City P Football Federation in order to prove the link between the player and Club O between 2004 and 2007. Taking into consideration the new documentation, the City P Football Federation issued a new statement on 29 March 2012, reason for which the country B Football Confederation amended the player passport. 21. After the investigation-phase of the matter was closed, Club O reverted to FIFA emphasising that the country B Football Confederation confirmed that the new documentation was introduced on 29 March 2012 only, i.e. prior to the point in time on which the agent became the agent of the player, that is, in May 2012. 22. In reply to Club O’s latest statement, Club A insisted that the second player passport was released solely on the basis of documents provided by Club O. However, such “documents” contained in fact only the declaration of the player. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) 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 17 August 2012. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008 and 2012 edition 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 (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. At this point, the Chamber stated that prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter, it had to verify whether or not it would be able to deal with the present affair for formal reasons. In particular, the Chamber took note of the formal objection of the Respondent, which considered that the claim of the Claimant was time-barred. In view of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that it first and foremost had to verify as to whether or not the claim of the Claimant was brought to FIFA in a timely manner. 4. In doing so, the DRC first turned to the content of art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that the deadline for the payment of training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association. 5. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, which, in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 6. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 18 August 2010, whereas the claim of the Claimant was lodged in front of FIFA on 17 August 2012, i.e. within the relevant 2 year timeframe. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the claim of the Claimant was not barred by the statute of limitations and is, thus, admissible. 7. In continuation, 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, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009, 2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 18 August 2010, the 2009 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 8. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player, born in August 1992, was, according to the first player passport issued by the country B Football Confederation, registered with the Claimant as from 26 April 2007 until 31 December 2007 as an amateur. Equally, the Chamber noted that, according to the second player passport issued by the country B Football Confederation, the player was registered with the Claimant as from 1 January 2004 until 31 December 2007 as an amateur. 9. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 298,750, since the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent and the latter had, so far, only paid the amount of EUR 61,250 to the Claimant. 10. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contested the claim of the Claimant indicating that it had already paid the amount of EUR 61,000 to the Claimant on 31 May 2011 after the latter had sent an invoice to the former which stated that: “In accordance with your letter as of 11 May 2011 concerning the training compensation of player (…) 61.000 Euros (…) to be paid to (…)”. In the Respondent’s view, the Claimant, by means of this letter, confirmed that the entire amount of training compensation amounted to EUR 61,000. 11. Having established the foregoing, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the present dispute primarily circles around the question whether or not the Respondent is obliged to pay an additional amount of training compensation to the Claimant based on the second player passport issued by the country B Football Confederation. 12. Following the above, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, according to which the club for which the player is registered for the first time as a professional, is responsible for paying training compensation in accordance with the player’s career history as provided for in the player passport. 13. In continuation, the DRC referred to art. 5 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates that professionals, as well as amateur players, must be registered with an association to play for a club. In particular, said article clearly points out that it is the responsibility of an association to register the player. 14. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant itself, after the registration of the player with the Respondent, had contacted the Respondent providing the latter with a copy of a player passport and a corresponding invoice. The Chamber acknowledged that on the basis of said player passport and invoice, the Respondent paid the amount of EUR 61,000 to the Claimant. Consequently, the members of the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the Respondent was in good faith to believe that the relevant data was accurate and that it had, therefore, fully complied with its obligations deriving from the pertinent provisions contained in Annexe 4 of the Regulations, when making the payment on 31 May 2011. 15. Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously concluded that it had no alternative but to follow its previous decisions, determining that the Respondent could rely on the first player passport issued by the country b Football Confederation, which was provided to them by the Claimant itself. 16. On a side note, the Chamber stressed that, even if the second player passport was to be considered, the training of the player with the Claimant took place between the years of 2004 and 2007, i.e. during the seasons of the player’s 12th to 15th birthday. 17. In this context, the Chamber wished to refer to FIFA Circular no. 1190 dated 20 May 2009 by means of which the members of FIFA were, inter alia, informed about the amended art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4, which came into force on 1 October 2009. Said FIFA Circular indicated that art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 “now stipulates that where the event giving rise to the right to training compensation occurs before the end of the season of the player's 18th birthday, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall no longer be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs, but on the category of the new club.” 18. Against this background, in particular since the aforementioned amendment of the pertinent article of Annexe 4 of the Regulations only came into force on 1 October 2009, the Chamber found that it, in any case, cannot apply said amendment to the years of training and education of the player prior to the coming into force of the amended art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4, i.e. prior to 1 October 2009. In other words, the Chamber concurred that the said provision could not be applied retro-actively and, consequently, decided that the second sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply to the seasons 2004 to 2007. Hence, even if the second player passport of the country B Football Confederation was to be considered, the claim of the Claimant would have been rejected. 19. In view of all the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant. 20. 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 the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 21. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 22. 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. 23. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 298,750 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 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 24. Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure, that the present case showed particular factual difficulty as well as specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 13,000. 25. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of country H 13,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to cover the costs of the present proceedings, currency of country H 5,000 of which have already been paid as advance of costs. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club O, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is rejected. 3. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 13,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, currency of country H 5,000 of which have already been paid as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings. Consequently, the additional amount of currency of country H 8,000 is to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to the following bank account with reference to case no.: ** 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 Enclosed: CAS directives