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 Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club Club C, from country B as Claimant against the club Club Z, from country S as Respondent regarding a dispute for training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player B

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 Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club Club C, from country B as Claimant against the club Club Z, from country S as Respondent regarding a dispute for training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player B I. Facts of the case 1. In accordance with the player’s passport remitted by country B Football Association, the player B (hereinafter: the player), born in July 1986, was registered with the Club C, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant or Club C) as well as with other country B clubs as follows: 2. Moreover, country B Football Confederation confirmed that the football season in country B follows the calendar year, i.e. from January to December of each year. 3. Additionally, country B Football Confederation provided a copy of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) request that it received from the Football Association of country S as well as the ITC issued on 23 January 2009, in favour of the Football Association of country S, which stated that the last club with which the player was registered with was Club C. 4. The Football Association of country S confirmed that, the concerned player was registered with its affiliated club, Club Z (hereinafter: the Respondent or Club Z), on 6 February 2009. Furthermore, it confirmed that Club Z belonged to the category III within UEFA (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it. 5. On 21 January 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent, alleging that the player was registered with the the latter on 21 January 2009 as well as that the Respondent belonged to the category II in Europe. Additionally, after amending its claim on 19 July 2011, the Claimant requested 165 days of the player’s 15th birthday as well as 726 days between the Club From To Status Basis Club C 20 July 2001 6 May 2002 Amateur Club K 7 May 2002 30 April 2003 Amateur Club C 1 May 2003 16 September 2003 Amateur Club I 17 September 2003 10 February 2004 Amateur Club C 11 February 2004 16 November 2004 Amateur Club C 17 November 2004 31 March 2005 Professional Club E 1 April 2005 1 October 2007 Professional On loan Club F 2 October 2007 2 January 2008 Professional On loan Club C 3 January 2008 4 February 2008 Professional Club D 5 February 2008 15 May 2008 Professional On loan Club C 16 May 2008 28 May 2008 Professional No record found 29 May 2008 22 January 2009 Club Z 23 January 2009 Professional player’s 16th to 19th birthday, equal to EUR 123,862.98 plus an interest of 5% per annum as of 21 February 2009. 6. On 17 August 2011, the Respondent submitted its position to the claim, rejecting the claim of the Claimant. In this Context, the Respondent held that the Claimant was not the player’s last club, but rather the Club E, from country B (hereinafter: Club E), as the player himself confirmed signing the document addressed to the Football Association of country S, which subject was “Request for certificate issuance”. Said document stated the following: “Would you kindly issue a certificate for player B, who was born in 1986, and who was a member of “Club E” from country B. I, player B, agree on request for the certificate on my behalf”. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that the aforementioned declaration is also supported by the player’s passport enclosed by the Claimant which is incomplete as of 29 May 2008. Additionally, the Respondent affirmed that the registration periods of the player with the Claimant are “utterly vague” and not in compliance with the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players of FIFA. 7. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that considering the contents of the player’s passport enclosed by the Claimant it is obvious that the player has been registered as a professional player on 17 November 2004, i.e. on his 18th birthday. In this respect, according to the Respondent, the player concluded his training period before the age of 21. 8. In continuation, upon request, country B Football Confederation confirmed that the player’s last club, before being transferred to the Respondent, was Club C as stated in the ITC issued in favour of the Football Association of country S dated 23 January 2009. Moreover, country B Football Confederation informed that the concerned player signed an employment contract with its affiliated club, Club C, for the period from 17 November 2004 until 16 November 2009 and, that during said period, he was on loan to Club E as well as Club D as detailed in the provided player’s passport. Additionally, country B Football Confederation confirmed that on 28 May 2008 the player and Club C prematurely terminated their contract as well as that as of 29 May 2008 until 22 January 2009 the player was not registered with any other country B club. 9. On account of the above, the Respondent provided further comments. In particular, the Respondent held that the Claimant should provide the employment contract that the latter concluded with the player for the period between 17 November 2004 and 16 November 2009, as well as the agreement for the termination of the aforementioned contract, considering that according to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players “training compensation is not due if: i) the former club terminates the player’s contract without just cause”. 10. Furthermore, the Respondent continued sustaining that the player’s former club was Club E (cf. point 6). In its support, the club enclosed internet extracts which stated that the player was playing for Club E between the period from 2005 and 2008, being on loan with Club C. 11. The Respondent also reiterated the fact that the player concluded his training period before the age of 21, having been registered as a professional on his 18th birthday as well as receiving a significant financial compensation, which could be proved on the base of the employment contract which the Claimant should provide. 12. The Claimant submitted its comments insisting on its claim as well as affirming that the Respondent actually belonged to category II within UEFA, considering the fact that the Respondent was participating in the 1st Football League of country S and country M. 13. At the submission of its final comments, the Respondent maintained all the statements made before in the present proceeding. 14. Moreover, the Respondent, referring to the loans of the player as described in the player’s passport, declared that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation for the periods when the player was on loan with other clubs. 15. Upon request for clarification, the Football Association of country S confirmed that its affiliated club, Club Z, “in the season 2008/2009 belonged to the II (second) category of clubs, in the season 2009/2010 III (third category) and in 2010/2011III (third) category.” 16. Finally, upon request, the Claimant stated that the employment contract concluded with the player was amicably terminated on 28 May 2008. In its support, the Claimant provided a copy of the termination agreement signed by the player and itself. 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 21 January 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. 1 and 2 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, the DRC analysed which regulations 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 (edition 2012, 2010, 2009 and 2008), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 6 February 2009 as well as that the present claim was lodged on 21 January 2011, the 2008 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 Chamber 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 above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. In this regard, the members of the DRC recalled that the player, born in July 1986, was registered with the Claimant as an amateur as follows: - from 20 July 2001 until 6 May 2002; - from 1 May 2003 until 16 September 2003; - from 11 February 2004 until 16 November 2004. 6. Equally, the DRC took note that the player was registered with the Claimant as a professional for the period between 17 November 2004 and 28 May 2008 as well as that he was on loan as follows: - from 1 April 2005 until 1 October 2007, on loan with the Club E, from country B; - from 2 October 2007 until 2 January 2008, on loan with the Club F, from country B; - from 5 February 2008 until 15 May 2008, on loan with the Club D, from country B 7. On account of the above, the Chamber equally remarked that country B Football Confederation confirmed that the concerned player had an employment contract with the Claimant from 17 November 2004 until 16 November 2009 and was registered with it until 28 May 2008 as well as that during that period he was on loan with the above-mentioned country B clubs, as stated in the players’ passport. 8. Moreover, the members of the DRC observed that, according to country B Football Confederation, the player and the Claimant prematurely terminated the contract on 28 May 2008 and that as of 29 May 2008 until 22 January 2009 the player was not registered with any further country B club. Consequently, the DRC acknowledged that country B Football Confederation confirmed that the player’s last club was Club C as stated in the ITC issued on favour of Football Association of country S on 23 January 2009. 9. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant claimed that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 123,862.98. 10. In this respect, the members of the DRC remarked that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, mainly arguing that the latter was not the player’s last club but rather Club E, basing its allegations on a document signed by the player which stated “Would you kindly issue a certificate for player B, who was born in 1986, and who was a member of “Club E” from country B. I, player B, agree on request for the certificate on my behalf”. The Chamber noticed that the Respondent declared that the aforesaid is also supported by the fact that the player’s passport is incomplete as of 29 May 2008. 11. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent held that the player had already terminated his training period before joining the Respondent, considering that he was registered with the Claimant as a professional on 17 November 2004, i.e. on his 18th birthday. 12. Finally, the members of the Chamber noticed that the Respondent affirmed that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation for the periods when the player was on loan with other clubs. 13. In this context, and considering the opposite positions of the parties, the Chamber highlighted that two main issues need to be analysed in the present matter: 1) Which club was the player’s last club before being transferred to the Respondent?; and 2) Was the player’s training already completed at the time he joined the Respondent? 14. When addressing the first issue, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations 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 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. 15. 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. 16. Additionally, recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfer of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club” as well as taking into account the information contained in the player’s passport issued by country B Football Confederation, the members of the DRC pointed out that, within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules governing training compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with other country B clubs on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant, should be considered as one entire timeframe. 17. Hence, the Chamber came to the firm conclusion that for the purposes of the provisions of the Regulations governing training compensation, the loan of a 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, however, excluding the period of time of the loans 18. Turning its attention to the argument raised by the Respondent in this context, the Chamber understood that the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant is not the player’s last club, considering that according to the document presented by the Respondent, the player himself confirmed that his last club was Club E and also because the player’s passport allegedly is incomplete as of 29 May 2008. 19. At this moment, the DRC made reference to the legal principle of the burden of proof and highlighted that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 20. With due consideration to all the above, the Chamber considered that the document presented by the Respondent, in particular the sentence contained therein, “who was member of Club E”, does not specify that the player agreed that Club E was his last club. In the contrary, the DRC emphasized that the ITC issued by country B Football Confederation on 23 January 2009, did specifically mention that the player was lastly registered with Club C. Furthermore, the DRC highlighted that country B Football Confederation also provided an official confirmation that Club C was the last country B club with which the player was registered. 21. In this regard, recalling art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that “In the 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” and taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the members of the Chamber concurred that it had to rely in the official confirmation of country B Football Confederation and reject the Respondent’s argumentation in relation to the fact that the Claimant was not the player’s last club. 22. In continuation regarding the second issue, the Chamber went on to examine whether or not the player’s training period had already been completed before the season of the player’s 21st birthday. 23. In this context, the Chamber emphasized that cases involving a possible early completion of a player’s training period have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, whereby all the specific circumstances and all the evidence produced has to be taken into consideration. Hence, several factors and indications have to be considered in order to assess and establish whether a particular player’s training has indeed been completed before the season of his 21st birthday. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber pointed out that, so far, both the Chamber as well as the CAS have adopted a strict approach in establishing that a player’s training had indeed been completed before the season of a player’s 21st birthday, so as to not jeopardize the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation. 24. In this respect, the Chamber took, once more, note of all the specific circumstances of the present matter and in particular of the fact that the Respondent held that the player’s training period concluded before his age of 21, because he was registered as a professional with the Claimant already on his 18th birthday as stated in the player’s passport issued by country B Football Confederation. 25. In light of the above, after a thorough examination of the argumentation provided by the Respondent as well as taking into account that the Respondent did not provide any evidence in order to support its argument in this regard, in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the members of the DRC deemed that the mere fact that the player was registered as a professional with the Claimant already on his 18th birthday, as confirmed by the player’s passport issued by country B Football Confederation, did not lead to the conclusion that the player’s training was already completed before his age of 21. 26. The members of the DRC further observed that the Claimant provided a copy of the termination agreement signed by the player and the Claimant, by means of which the aforementioned parties agreed by mutual consent to terminate the contract valid from 17 November 2004 until 16 November 2009, 28 May 2008. Therefore, the DRC highlighted that the Claimant, pursuant to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, proved that the employment relationship with the player was mutually terminated and thus it did not terminate the contract without just cause. 27. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, in particular after clarifying the two main issues stated under point II.13, the members of the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 28. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to the FIFA circular no. 1223 dated 29 April 2010 which provides details for the calculation of training compensation as well as to art. 5 par. 1 and par.2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former club, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. 29. In continuation, the members of the Chamber observed that although at first the Football Association of country S indicated that the Respondent belonged to the category III within UEFA (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year), upon request it clarified that during the relevant season 2008/2009 the Respondent belonged to the category II within UEFA (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) and during the season 2009/2010 to the category III. In this regard, taking into account that the player was registered with the Respondent on 6 February 2009, as confirmed by Football Association of country S (cf. point I.4), the members of the DRC determined that the category to take into consideration is category II. 30. Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that according to the player’s passport issued by country B Football Confederation the player was registered with the Claimant as follows: - from 20 July 2001 until 6 May 2002, as amateur; - from 1 May 2003 until 16 September 2003, as amateur; - from 11 February 2004 until 16 November 2004, as amateur; and - from 17 November 2004 until 28 May 2008, as professional. At this point, the members of the DRC took into consideration that the player was loaned to several country B clubs during the following periods: - from 1 April 2005 until 1 October 2007, as professional; - from 2 October 2007 until 2 January 2008, as professional; and - from 5 February 2008 until 15 May 2008, as professional. 31. On account of the above-stated, the Chamber decided that the player was effectively registered with- and trained by - the Claimant for a period of 28 months. However, recalling that the player was born in July 1986, the members of the Chamber considered that the period from 20 July 2001 until 31 December 2001 corresponded to the player’s 15th birthday. Therefore, referring to art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the members of the DRC determined that the calculation for the aforementioned period of the player’s 15th birthday would be based on the training and education costs of category IV within UEFA (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year). 32. Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 119,166. 33. In addition, regarding the interest claimed by the Claimant, the members of the DRC emphasized that according to art. 3 par. 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the deadline for payment of the training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association. 34. Equally, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, in accordance to the well-established jurisprudence concerning the payment of interest of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, default interest at a rate of 5% per annum is applicable as from the first day after the respective due date. 35. Therefore, the DRC considered that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 119.166, as of 9 March 2009 until the date of effective payment. 36. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, 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, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 37. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 123,862.98 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 Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 38. As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the number of issues that had to be addressed as well as that the Respondent was the unsuccessful party in the present proceedings, 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. Also, considering that the Claimant had already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay currency of country H 5,000 to the Claimant and currency of country H 10,000 to FIFA. 39. Finally, the members of the DRC concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. ***** Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club Z, has to pay to the Claimant, Club C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 119,166 as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amount, as of 9 March 2009 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the amount plus interest due in accordance with point 2 are 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. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club C, are rejected. 5. 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, Club Z, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 10,000 to FIFA, to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 to the Claimant, Club C. 6. The Claimant, Club C, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club Z, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance of the amounts under the points 2 and 5.2 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives