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 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Phillipe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the club, Club W, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country P as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player R

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 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Phillipe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the club, Club W, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country P as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player R I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by country G Football Federation the Player R, from country G (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1989, was registered with the country G clubs: - Club W as from 1 August 2000 until 15 December 2006; - Club B as from 16 March 2007 until 30 June 2008; - Club W as from 1 July 2008 until 24 June 2009; - Club S as from 26 January 2010 until 28 June 2011; - Club T as from 29 June 2011 until 29 June 2011. 2. The country G Football Federation explained that the player filed an application for registration with Club T 1919 on 29 June 2011, but, on the same day, cancelled such application. Therefore, the player was never actually registered to play for Club T. 3. Equally, according to the aforementioned player passport, the player was registered as an amateur with all above-mentioned clubs. 4. The country G Football Federation confirmed that the player was neither registered with any country G club as from 16 December 2006 until 15 March 2007 and from 25 June 2009 until 25 January 2010, nor that an ITC was issued to a foreign association. 5. The football seasons in country G during the period of time the player was registered with Club W (hereinafter: the Claimant) started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 6. 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. 7. The country P Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with Club M (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 11 August 2011 as a professional. 8. Furthermore, the country P Football Federation 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. the 2011/2012 season. 9. On 11 November 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, in August 2011, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 162,500. 10. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the claim, the Respondent did not respond to the claim or make any statements at all during the course of the investigation 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 11 November 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 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 11 August 2011, 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 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 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 DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 162,500, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 6. Furthermore, the DRC duly noted that the Respondent never took position in the present matter, although having been invited to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the DRC deemed that, in this way, the Respondent renounced to its right to defence and accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 7. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file. 8. Having established 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 player is registered for the first time as a professional, 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. 9. The aforementioned having been established, the Chamber 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 Chamber concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 10. However, in this regard, the Chamber 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). 11. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 12. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 7 January 1989 and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 August 2000 until 15 December 2006 and from 1 July 2008 until 24 June 2009 as an amateur. 13. Equally, the DRC recalled that the country P Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 11 August 2011 as a professional. 14. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 20 in combination with Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 August 2000 until 15 December 2006 and from 1 July 2008 until 24 June 2009, i.e. for 11 months of the 2000/2001 season, the full seasons of 2001/2002 until and including the 2005/2006 season, 5 months of the 2006/2007 season and the full 2008/2009 season. 15. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 158,750 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 16. 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 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. 17. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 162,500 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 20,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 18. As a result, and taking into account that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues as well as considering that the Respondent never took stance in the procedure, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 15,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club W, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club M, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 158,750. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of the date of expiry of the stipulated time limit and 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 15,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 11,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 4,000 to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.2. above are 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 Enclosed: CAS directives