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 Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country P 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 Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country P as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player M I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country S, the player M from country S (hereinafter: the player), born on 6 March 1991, was registered with the country S clubs: - Club A as from 9 September 2004 until 30 August 2005; - Club V as from 31 August 2005 until 23 August 2009; - Club B as from 24 August 2009 until 24 August 2010. 2. The Football Federation of country S confirmed that the player was registered as an amateur with all above-mentioned clubs. 3. The football seasons in country S 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. 4. According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it. 5. The Football Federation of country P confirmed that the player was registered with Club X (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 31 August 2010 as a professional. 6. Furthermore, the Football Federation of country P confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount EUR 60,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e. 2010/2011. 7. On 27 January 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, in July 2010, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 200,000, as well as 5% interest p.a. calculated as of the date on which the training compensation became due. 8. On 2 July 2012, the Respondent stated in its reply that the player had already signed a professional contract with Club B before he was transferred to the Respondent, indicating that the transfer contract between the clubs contained the wording “Club B is the holder of the federative rights of the professional football player”. Consequently, the Respondent stated that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation. However, it stated that the Claimant is entitled to receive solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player. 9. The Respondent provided a copy of the transfer agreement concluded between it and Club B on 23 June 2010 (hereinafter: the agreement). The agreement stipulated that Club B is the holder of the federative rights of the professional football player and that the Respondent would pay Club B the amount of EUR 6,000,000 in several instalments. The Respondent reiterated its statement that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation. 10. In reply to the Respondent’s latest statements, the Claimant argued that the Football Federation of country S confirmed that the player was registered in country S as an amateur only. It is therefore the Respondent that shall prove the contrary. According to the Claimant, it cannot be concluded from the agreement that the player already had the status of professional when he was registered with Club B. 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 27 January 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 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. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 August 2010, the Chamber analysed which 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 with the Respondent on 31 August 2010, the 2009 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 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 facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 6 March 1991 and was registered with the Claimant as from 31 August 2005 until 23 August 2009 as an amateur. 6. In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 200,000, 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 Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, alleging that the player had already signed his first professional contract with his previous club, Club B indicating that the transfer contract with Club B contained the wording “Club B is the holder of the federative rights of the professional football player”. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation. 8. Equally, the DRC took due note of the content of the transfer agreement concluded between the Respondent and Club B, which stipulated that Club B is the holder of the federative rights of the professional football player and that the Respondent would pay to Club B the amount of EUR 6,000,000 in several instalments. 9. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the Chamber observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether the player had already obtained the status of professional prior to his transfer from Club B to the Respondent. 10. In this regard, the DRC started by analysing the transfer agreement concluded between the Respondent and Club B and referred to the wording of the agreement, which stipulated that “Club B is the holder of the federative rights of the professional football player”. Equally, the Chamber referred to the transfer compensation of EUR 6,000,000 that was established in the agreement and was to be paid by the Respondent to Club B for the transfer of the player. 11. In light of the above, the members of the Chamber were comfortably satisfied in their conclusion that, regardless of the information received from the The Football Federation of country S indicating the status of the player as amateur with Club B, the player had already obtained the professional status during the time he was registered with Club B In other words, the fact that Club B transfers the player as a professional and for the amount of EUR 6,000,000 clearly indicates that the player was already a professional player when he was registered with Club B. 12. Taking into consideration the above, the Chamber 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 latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 13. In this context, the DRC pointed out that, in fact, the player was transferred as a professional from his former club, Club B, to the Respondent and that, taking into account the relevant provisions mentioned above, the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation since the Claimant was not the player’s former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 14. In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s claim. 15. 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 DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 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. 16. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 200,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 17. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the complexity of the case as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 18,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club V, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 18,000 are to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the amount of CHF 13,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A ***** 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 Enclosed: CAS directives