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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 September 2013, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country R as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player H

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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 September 2013, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country R as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player H I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country P Football Federation, the player, Player H (hereinafter: the player), born in June 1992, was registered as an amateur with the country P clubs: - Club V as from 18 November 2002 until 11 August 2004; - Club Q as from 12 August 2004 until 31 July 2011. 2. The football seasons in country P during the period of time the player was registered with Club V (hereinafter: the Claimant) started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 3. The country R Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with Club B (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 11 August 2011 as a professional. 4. On 17 May 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 1 August 2011, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 9,506.84, as well as 5% interest p.a. as of 1 September 2011. 5. On 25 June 2013, the Respondent referred in its reply to art. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and stated that the player already obtained professional status when he was registered with Club Q. In this context, the Respondent also referred to the transfer contract concluded between it and Club Q on 27 July 2011, which stipulates, inter alia, that the player was a professional player, as well as: “Second: Club Q will have the right to receive the amount equivalent to 25% of the total amount of a future transfer of federative rights of the player, always and only when the transfer occurs from Club B to a third club, with a minimum amount of EUR 200,000 to be received by Club Q. Third: Club Q expressly waives its right to receive training compensation in connection with this transfer.” 6. Furthermore, the Respondent explained that Club Q confirmed to it that “it was the sole holder of the federative rights of the Player since 1992, this is, the year in which the player was born”. Finally, the Respondent referred to CAS jurisprudence (2010/A/2069 Club G v. Club A which stipulates that “the wording of a footballer’s contract or its headline or even the status under which the player is registered within the federation are irrelevant in determining the status of a player per se”. 7. With regard to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, C argued that it is a pure amateur club without the means to offer professional contracts to its players. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter also referred to as DRC judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 May 2012. 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 2008 and 2012 editions of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge 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, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 11 August 2011, 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 DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First of all, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born on 4 June 1992 and was registered with the Claimant as from 18 November 2002 until 11 August 2004 as an amateur. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 9,506.84, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 7. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant with reference to art. 2 of the Regulations, alleging that the player had already signed his first professional contract with his previous club, Club Q, indicating that the transfer contract with Club Q referred to the player as a “professional football player”. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation. 8. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the DRC judge observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether the player had already obtained the status of professional prior to his transfer from Club Q to the Respondent. 9. In this regard, the DRC judge started by emphasizing that the country P Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered as an amateur with Club Q. 10. Subsequently, the DRC judge took note of the Respondent’s argument that the player should be considered a professional in light of art. 2 of the Regulations. In this respect, the DRC judge held that the Respondent did not provide any evidence in support of its aforementioned statement, apart from the relevant contract concluded between the Respondent and Club Q. 11. In this respect, the DRC judge thoroughly examined the content of the transfer contract between Club Q and the Respondent and, in this regard, noted that, besides the player being referred to as a “professional football player”, there is no other indication in the transfer contract supporting the player’s alleged professional status with Club Q. The DRC judge emphasised that the mere fact that Club Q and the Respondent had established in the relevant contract that the player was a professional, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the player was in fact a professional with Club Q. 12. In light of the above, the DRC judge was comfortably satisfied in his conclusion that, in absence of any other documentary evidence, the information received from the country P Football Federation indicating the status of the player as amateur with Club Q prevails in the matter at hand over the wording in the transfer contract concluded between Club Q and the Respondent. 13. Equally, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent’s argument that Club Q “was the sole holder of the federative rights of the Player since 1992, this is, the year in which the player was born”, should be rejected taking into account that the country P Football Federation had confirmed that the player had been registered with the Claimant. 14. Taking into consideration the above, the DRC judge referred to the rules applicable to cases regarding training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, when a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the former occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying 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. 15. The aforementioned having been established, the DRC judge then referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to another association inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). In this regard, the Chamber indicated that, since the player moved from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the DRC judge concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 16. However, in this regard, the DRC judge pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player and not with the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision is without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous club(s). 17. On account of the above considerations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 18. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born in June 1992 and was registered with the Claimant as from 18 November 2002 until 11 August 2004 as an amateur. 19. Equally, the DRC recalled that the country R Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 11 August 2011 as a professional. 20. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 20 in combination with Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 July 2003 until 11 August 2004. 21. In view of all of the above, and taking into account the claimed amount by the Claimant, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 9,506.84 plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on said amount as of 11 September 2011 until the date of effective payment. 22. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations as to the substance of the matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. 23. Lastly, the DRC judge 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 DRC, as well as the DRC judge, relating to disputes regarding training compensation, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annex 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 judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 9,506.84 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 25. As a result, considering that the case at hand did not pose any particular factual difficulties and taking into account the degree of success, the DRC judge determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 1,000 which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club V, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 9,506.84 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 11 September 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 1,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is to be made and to notify the DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives