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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 December 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club Club X, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club U, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a dispute for training compensation in connection with the international transfer of the player J.

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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 December 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club Club X, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club U, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a dispute for training compensation in connection with the international transfer of the player J. I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country A, the player J (hereinafter: “the player”), born on 20 June 1989, was registered as follows: • with the Club X (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), as an amateur from 8 July 1999 until 6 November 2007 and as a professional from 7 November 2007 until 31 January 2008; • with the Club Y (hereinafter: “Y”) as a professional from 1 February 2008 until 30 June 2009 on a loan basis; • finally, the player came back to the Claimant as a professional from 1 July 2009 until 7 August 2009. 2. The sporting season in country A runs as follows: a) for amateurs (under 20 years of age) from January to December of the relevant year and b) for amateurs (more than 20 years of age) and professionals from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. According to a written confirmation provided by the Football Federation of country I the player was registered with its affiliated club U (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) on 14 August 2009. Moreover, the Football Federation of country I informed FIFA that the Respondent was a first category club (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 within UEFA) when the player was registered with it. 4. On 6 July 2010, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent, claiming the payment of training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player as a professional to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 298,156 plus interest at a rate of 5% per annum applicable since the expiry of the time limit of 30 days provided by art. 3, par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”), as well as the costs of the proceedings. 5. In particular, the Claimant alleged that the player was loaned without any charge (or option) to club Y until 30 June 2009. The Claimant sent to FIFA a copy of a loan agreement dated 27 May 2008 valid until 30 June 2009 and a copy of the Football Association of country A Bulletin number 23/2008 (dated 1 July 2008) which mentions the relevant loan. 6. Moreover, the Claimant stated that after the loan to club Y, the player came back to them until the end of the relevant employment contract. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that no contract or transfer agreement had been signed between the Claimant and the Respondent. The Claimant enclosed a copy of the Football Association of country A Bulletin number 31/2009 (dated 25 August 2009) which mentions the international transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 7. Upon´s FIFA request for position, and as a preliminary remark, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had addressed its claim to FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee and not to FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Respondent deemed that the claim should be declared inadmissible. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent claimed that the Claimant appeared to be in bankruptcy proceedings and therefore deemed that FIFA was not any more competent to deal with the present claim. 9. As to the substance of the matter, the Respondent alleged that: a) the compensation demanded by the Claimant is not due by the Respondent and, if any compensation is indeed due, it should be paid solely by club Y since the player’s training can be legitimately considered to have already ended before his transfer from the Claimant to club Y. In this respect, the Respondent argued that the player had apparently played 30 matches with club Y in the country A first division, scoring a total of 18 goals; b) the transfer – although on a loan basis – from the Claimant to club Y “broke” the transfer “chain” and therefore deprives the transferor club, i.e. the Claimant, of any right to receive any compensation for the seasons before this transfer; c) due to the fact that the player could qualify as a professional footballer as from 7 November 2007 (loan to club Y), the Claimant had in any case lost the right to claim from the Respondent since the term of 18 months provided by art. 3, par. 3 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations had expired; d) the information contained in the player passport enclosed to the Claimant´s request does not correspond to the dates invoked by the Claimant. 10. Alternatively, in the event that FIFA would deem that training compensation was due, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had not provided any explanations as to how it had come up with the figure it was claiming. 11. Upon FIFA´s request for clarification, Football Association from country A enclosed an updated player passport. 12. In its replica, the Claimant reiterated its previous allegations. Moreover, the Claimant rejected the allegations of the Respondent and stated that: a) the player was a professional with the Claimant before being transferred on loan to club Y. This claim is not based on the first registration of the player as a professional (Annexe 4, art. 2, par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations) but on Annexe 4, art. 2, par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations; b) the loan to club Y does not interrupt the “chain” of the request for training compensation as only the definitive transfer has the legal effect to “break the chain”; c) with regard to the issue of bankruptcy, the Claimant stated that the judicial control over its administration, ordered in the year 2005 in application of the “ley” 25.284, does not affect its legal standing to claim in front of FIFA. 13. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated all its previous allegations and added that: a) the two player passports produced by Football Association of country A do not coincide with each other. Moreover, the loan agreement provided by the Claimant is dated 27 May 2008, thus putting in doubt the credibility of its statements; b) in any case, based on the information of both passports, the same conclusion can be drawn that the registration of the player as a professional with club Y “broke the chain”; c) the compensation demanded by the Claimant is not owed by the Respondent but is exclusively owed by club Y since the player training had already ended before his transfer to club Y; d) art. 10 of the Regulations lays down the principle of full equality between transfer and loan with regard to the application of the provisions concerning training compensation; e) art. 3, par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which is a special regulation to the regulatory framework in training compensation, established that for cases of subsequent transfers, training compensation is only paid to the last club and for the duration of the actual training. Therefore, it is undeniable that the transfer on loan to club Y interrupted the transfer “chain”. 14. On 1 July 2013, Football Association of country A informed FIFA that the Claimant is still affiliated and actively participating in competitions. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the 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 6 July 2010. 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 par. 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, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. However, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of competence presented by the Respondent. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that according to the official statement of 1 July 2013 issued by the Football Association of country A, the Claimant is still affiliated and actively participating in its competitions. Therefore, the Chamber recalled the content of art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules which establishes that clubs which are under the auspices of one of FIFA’s member associations are legitimate parties in front of FIFA’s deciding bodies. Consequently, and since the present matter concerned a dispute between two clubs belonging to two different member associations, the Chamber confirmed that it was competent to deal with the present matter. 4. Furthermore, the Chamber 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), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 14 August 2009 as well as that the present claim was lodged on 6 July 2010, 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. 5. 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 facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 6. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 20 June 1989, was registered with the Claimant as an amateur for the period between 8 July 1999 until 6 November 2007 and as a professional for the period between 7 November 2007 and 7 August 2009 and that, between 1 February 2008 and 30 June 2009, the player was registered on a loan basis with club Y. 7. In continuation, the Chamber took note that, on the one hand, the Claimant requested that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 298,156. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the Claimant´s demand for training compensation alleging that, since when the player was transferred “on loan” to club Y he was already a professional. For that reason, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant had lost its entitlement to receive training compensation and, in addition to that, at that time, the player had already terminated his training period. 8. Consequently, the Chamber highlighted that two issues needed to be analysed in the present matter: (1) Does a club that, during the training and education of the player, loans the player to another club, lose its entitlement to training compensation; (2) Was the player’s training already completed at the time the player joined the Respondent. 9. Starting with 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 in fine 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. 10. 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. 11. Turning its attention to the argument raised by the Respondent in this context, the Chamber underlined that the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant is not entitled to any training compensation, since the Claimant loaned the player to another club and, therefore, 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, i.e. the loan of the player from the Claimant to club Y constituted a subsequent transfer and consequently deprived the Claimant from its potential entitlement to claim training compensation from the Respondent. 12. With due consideration to the above, the Chamber stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 until the age of 23 (unless it is evident that the player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21) are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them. 13. At this point, the Chamber deemed it essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being definitively transferred to the latter club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan, as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin, do not constitute a “subsequent transfer” in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 in fine of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Chamber was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (i.e. art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in official matches for another club in order to develop in a positive way. 14. In addition, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 in fine of Annexe 4 of the Regulations 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”, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the Chamber 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 club Y on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant, should be considered as one entire timeframe. 15. 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 young 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 loan. 16. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent’s interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 in fine of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is incorrect and reiterated that the loan of the player to club Y cannot be considered to constitute a subsequent transfer which would trigger the consequences stipulated in art. 3 par. 1 in fine of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 17. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s argumentation in relation to art. 3 par. 1 in fine of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 18. In continuation, 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. 19. In this context, the Chamber emphasised 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 jeopardise the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation. 20. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber pointed out that the period of training to be taken into account shall only be reduced if it is evident that the player has terminated his training period before the age of 21. Furthermore, the Chamber underlined that the Respondent carries the burden of proof to that regard. 21. The Chamber acknowledged that the main arguments put forward by the Respondent are the fact that the player in question was fielded by club Y, the club in which the player was on loan, in 30 matches of the country A first division competition scoring a total of 18 goals and that the Respondent had not presented any “official” documentary evidence to that regard but only a printout from a website. 22. In addition, the Chamber took note that the Respondent did not present any evidence with regard to the alleged completion of the player´s training during the period of time that the player was registered for the Claimant. 23. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that, in the specific matter at hand and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements combined and referring to the above-mentioned principle of the burden of proof, it could not be established that the player had indeed already completed his training before joining the Respondent. Hence, the Chamber deemed that the training period of the player had not been completed before the season of his 21st birthday. 24. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 25. Turning its attention to the calculation of the actual amount of training compensation due, the Chamber referred to the art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that, as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club. 26. In continuation, the Chamber observed that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the category I (UEFA, indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 8 July 1999 until 31 January 2008 as well as that the player was loaned to club Y as from 1 February 2008 until 30 June 2009, returning to the Claimant on 1 July 209 until 7 August 2009. 27. In this context, the Chamber recalled that according to the art. 1 par. 1 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations “A player´s training and education takes place between the ages of 12 and 23”. 28. Therefore, taking into account that the player was registered with the Claimant prior to the age of 12, the Chamber pointed out that the calculation of the training compensation in the matter at stake should start on 20 June 2001, date on which the player turned 12 years old. 29. In sum, the Chamber outlined that taking into account the date on which the player turned 12 years old and the period during which he was registered with club Y, the player was effectively registered with and trained by the Claimant for a total period of 80 months. 30. At this stage, the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 298,156 plus an annual interest at a rate of 5% to be applied since the expiry of the time limit of 30 days cf. art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations 31. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that based on the cited applicable regulations and the claimed amounts, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 298,156 as well as 5% default interest per year from 16 September 2009 until the date of effective payment. 32. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction with 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 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, 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. 33. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 298,156 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 Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 34. 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 CHF 20,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club X, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club U, has to pay to the Claimant, Club X, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 298,156 plus interest of 5% p.a. on said amount as from 16 September 2009 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. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club US, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1 The amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 4.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid to the Claimant, Club X. 5. The Claimant, Club X, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club U, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 4.2 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 article 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 Encl. CAS directives