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 28 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club H, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Z

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 28 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club H, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Z I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country C the player Z (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1994, was registered as an amateur with the country C clubs: - Club H as from 18 August 2004 until 17 August 2009; - Club as from 18 August 2009 until 2 September 2011 (on loan). 2. The Football Association of country C explained that the player did not return to Club H (hereinafter: the Claimant) because the loan period was intended to expire on 30 June 2013. The Claimant added that the player started studying in Prague and that therefore he went on loan to Club P from “18.8.2009 till 30.6.2013”. Club P, which is also involved in these proceedings, stated that the loan was made pursuant to art. 8 of the country Z “Regulations of Transfer for unprofessional player” and that there was no loan agreement concluded. 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Club G, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 22 August 2011, entered a transfer instruction into the TMS by means of which it “engaged the player out of contract, free of payment” from Club P. 4. The football seasons in the country Z Republic during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant started and ended as follows: - 2004/2005 from 7 August 2004 until 11 June 2005; - 2005/2006 from 7 August 2005 until 13 June 2006; - 2006/2007 from 29 July 2006 until 8 May 2007; - 2007/2008 from 4 August 2007 until 19 May 2008; - 2008/2009 from 2 August 2008 until 30 May 2009; - 2009/2010 from 25 July 2009 until 30 May 2010. 5. According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it. 6. The country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 September 2011 as a professional. 7. Equally, the country I Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) at the moment the player was registered with it. 8. On 7 February 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 2 September 2011, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 240,000. 9. In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had not offered a contract to the player in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and that, therefore, it is not entitled to receive training compensation. 10. In light of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant provided a letter, apparently sent to the player on 19 May 2011, by means of which it allegedly sent the player a contractual offer. 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 7 February 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, 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 2 September 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 240,000, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 6. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, alleging that the Respondent had not offered a contract to the player in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 7. Equally, the DRC took due note that, according to the Claimant, it had sent a letter to the player on 19 May 2011, by means of which it allegedly sent the player a contract offer. 8. In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. 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. Therefore, the Chamber concurred that indeed, in principle, training compensation is due whenever a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 9. In continuation, the DRC 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 the country C Republic to country I, i.e. from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the DRC concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 10. In continuation, the DRC pointed out that the 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. Consequently, and given the particularities of the present matter, the DRC held that it had to establish which club is to be considered the player’s former club. 11. In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player was registered as an amateur with the Claimant as from 18 August 2004 until 17 August 2009 and, thereafter, according to the Football Association of country C, on loan with Club P as from 18 August 2009 until 2 September 2011, also as an amateur. 12. Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Association of country C had explained that the player did not return to the Claimant because the loan period was intended to expire on 30 June 2013, as well as that Club P explained that there was no loan agreement concluded with the Claimant. 13. Likewise, the DRC recalled that, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent, on 22 August 2011, entered a transfer instruction into the TMS by means of which it “engaged the player out of contract, free of payment” from Club P. 14. Finally, the DRC noted that the ITC of the player, uploaded in TMS and issued by the Football Association of country C, also stipulated that the player was “formerly a member of Club P.” 15. Taking into consideration all the aforementioned circumstances, the DRC concluded that the player was transferred directly from Club P to the Respondent and that, as a consequence, Club P is to be considered the former club of the player. Indeed, the Chamber emphasised that the information contained in TMS together with the absence of a loan agreement and the fact that the player was at all times registered as an amateur can lead to no other conclusion than that Club P was the former club of the player. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that Club P should be considered the player’s former club in light of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 16. In this regard, the Chamber reiterated that the 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, which, as explained above, it not to be considered the former club of the player in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 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 Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 18. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred 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, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to the exception contained in the first sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that to ensure that training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the second sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which states that the aforementioned exception shall not be applicable where the event giving rise to the right to training compensation occurs before the end of the season of the player’s 18th birthday. 19. 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.” 20. 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 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 2005/2006 to 2008/2009 during which the player was registered with the Claimant. 21. Having established the above, the DRC referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which contains special provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category club or from a higher to a lower category club within the territory of the EU/EEA. 22. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 9 January 1994 and was registered with the Claimant as from 18 August 2004 until 17 August 2009 as an amateur. 23. Equally, the DRC recalled that the country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 September 2011 as a professional. 24. 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 2005 until 17 August 2009, i.e. for the full seasons of 2005/2006 until and including the 2008/2009 season (seasons of the player’s 12th to 15th birthday), and 1 month of the 2009/2010 season (season of the player’s 16th birthday). 25. 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 45,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 26. 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 Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 27. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 240,000 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 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 28. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the complexity of the case as well as the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 16,000, of which currency of country H 13,000 shall be borne by the Claimant and currency of country H 3,000 by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club H, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club G, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 45,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 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 16,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 3,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. wit: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 13,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the amount of currency of country H 8,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the above-mentioned bank account with reference to case nr. wit. 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 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