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 17 January 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the club, Club G, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country I as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the player S

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 17 January 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the club, Club G, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country I as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the player S I. Facts of the case 1. The country F Football Federation confirmed that the player, Player S (hereinafter: the player), born in February 1992, was registered with its affiliated club, Club G (hereinafter: the Claimant) from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2010 as an “Aspirant” and from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011 as a professional. 2. Moreover, the country F Football Federation informed FIFA that the Claimant consists of two separate entities: the Société Anonyme Sportive Professionnelle Club G (hereinafter: SASP), which signed all employment contracts with the player during the seasons 2007/2008 to 2010/2011, and the Association Club G (hereinafter: Association). According to the information provided by the country F Football Federation, based on an agreement between the Association and the SASP and in accordance with the regulations of the country F Football Federation, the latter entity was responsible for the participation of the Claimant’s professional teams in the various competitions. 3. Furthermore, the the country F Football Federation informed FIFA that on 12 July 2011, the SASP entered into liquidation without the Claimant losing its affiliation at the the country F Football Federation. It only lost its status of professional club at the end of the season 2010/2011 and continued competing in the 4th country F division and since then has the status of a category IV club. 4. In addition, the the country F Football Federation informed FIFA that, despite the fact that the Association and the SASP are linked through an agreement, the Association cannot be regarded as the legal successor of the SASP. As constituted in the liquidation proceedings, the legal successor of the SASP is the liquidator Mr R, 9 bis rue New York, country F, for the duration of the liquidation. 5. The football season in country F lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 6. According to the country I Football Federation, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club B (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 10 August 2011 as a professional. 7. The country F Football Federation confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA) during the period when the player was registered with it. 8. The country I Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with the club. 9. On 23 November 2011, the Claimant, under the name of the Association, contacted FIFA requesting the training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent, for an amount of EUR 360,000. 10. In its reply, the Respondent indicated that the player was registered with the SASP and not with the Association during the seasons 2007/2008 to 2010/2011. At the same time, the Respondent stated that the SASP was declared in judicial liquidation by the Tribunal de Commerce on 12 July 2011. The Respondent provided a letter addressed by the “nominated Commissioner” to the player in which reference to the above-mentioned decision is made and the player is informed of the early termination of his contract for economic reasons due to the cessation of the SASP’s activities. 11. Consequently, the Respondent deems that the SASP’s decision of entering into liquidation constituted a unilateral breach of the employment contract without just cause by the SASP, with the consequences stipulated in art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), i.e. that no training compensation should have fallen due. 12. Furthermore, the Respondent stressed that art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations provides 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”. Therefore, the Respondent deemed that as of 25 July 2011 the player was a free agent and could hence be signed without the payment of a transfer fee. Thus, there was no transfer which could have triggered an obligation for the Respondent to pay training compensation. 13. In addition to that, the Respondent emphasized that, according to art. 4 par. 1 and art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, only the club which actually trained the player could claim for training compensation. In this context, the Respondent referred to the decision of the country F Football Federation dated 27 July 2011, by which it was established that all sporting rights of the club would be assigned to the Association. According to the Respondent, following this decision, the Association only received the sporting rights of the SASP, which do not include the right to receive training compensation. Finally, given that the Association was not involved in the training of the player, it shall not have the right to receive training compensation. 14. Alternatively, the Respondent alleges that the player had already finished his training before the age of 21, referring to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In this regard, the Respondent indicated that during the season 2010/2011, i.e. when the player was 18 years old, he played in 26 matches with the first team of the SASP, thereof 16 in the starting line-up. In view of the above, the Respondent argues that when calculating the amount of training compensation, the period to be considered as effective training has to be reduced. 15. In addition, the Respondent objects to the amount of EUR 360,000 which was claimed by the Association as training compensation. In this regard, the Respondent stresses that the Association, which actually claimed for training compensation before FIFA, was a category IV club, whereas only the SASP was a category I club. Consequently, according to art. 6 par. 1 lit. a of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation should be calculated based on the average training costs of the two clubs. Therefore, the calculation should only be based on the average of EUR 50,000 and only for the seasons of effective training of the player, which according to the Respondent are the seasons 2007/2008, 2008/2009 and 2009/2010. 16. Moreover, the Respondent pointed to the fact that the Association in its correspondence with the Respondent dated 17 October 2011, considered an indicative amount of EUR 50,000 as applicable, whereas only the country F Football Federation when submitting the Association’s claim to FIFA on 23 November 2011 regarded EUR 90,000 as the correct indicative amount. 17. Lastly, the Respondent referred to jurisprudence of the CAS (CAS 2009/A/XXXX Club M v. Club N, award of 30 July 2009), indicating that the amount due as training compensation can be reduced in certain circumstances. In this context, the Respondent held that since the matter at hand regards a club declared in liquidation and the Claimant is a club that has never made any contribution in the training of the player, a reduction of the training compensation would be justified. 18. In its replica, without making a distinction between the Association and the SASP, the Claimant emphasized that it was the club itself which effectively trained the player. 19. In this context, the Claimant indicated that art. 26 of the Regulations of the country F Football Federation requires that clubs constitute a company whenever certain levels of profit or remuneration are reached. In addition, art. 27 stipulates that: [Free translation] “(…) the sporting organization which is affiliated to the Federation and constitutes a company continues to exist as an « association » as per the law of 1901 and it remains the only beneficiary of the consequences of being affiliated and, if applicable, of the right to use professional players.” [Original language] “(…) l’association sportive affiliée à la Fédération qui constitue une société continue d’exister en tant qu’association de la loi de 1901 et elle seule bénéficie des effets de l’affiliation et, les cas échéant, de l’autorisation d’utiliser des joueurs professionnels.» 20. Therefore, the Claimant held that despite the denominational difference between the Association and the SASP, it remained the sole holder of rights with regard to training compensation, as it was representing the totality of the Claimant in accordance with the Regulations of the country F Football Federation. 21. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that it had provided the player with accommodation and food within the training center of the Association during the period when the player was registered with the SASP. Moreover, the player was allegedly trained by the coaching staff of the Association. Hence, it shall be regarded as the club which has actually trained the player. 22. In its final position, the Respondent reiterated its previous position, however emphasizing that the Association and the SASP should be considered as two different clubs, which happened to have a joint-venture and an agreement stipulating the relationship between these two clubs. Consequently, the Association should not be regarded as the club which trained the player, as this was solely the SASP. In this context, the Respondent stresses that the player was never registered for the Association but only for the SASP. 23. After having been asked to provide its position regarding art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Claimant stated that this article was not applicable to the present case as the employment contract with the player did not expire but was cancelled due to the liquidation of the SASP. Hence, the Association could not propose a contract extension for a contract which had not expired yet as stipulated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber) analysed which procedural rules were applicable to the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 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. article 21 par. 2 and 3 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010 and 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber was competent to adjudicate on a dispute relating to training compensation between a country F club and an country I club. 3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations were applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 and art. 29 of the 2010 and 2012 edition of the Regulations, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 November 2011 and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 10 August 2011, the 2010 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The Chamber first of all took note of the claim lodged by the Claimant for training compensation in the amount of EUR 360,000 in relation to the transfer of the player to a club belonging to a different association before the end of his 23rd birthday. 5. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 6. In a first instance, the Claimant deemed fit to address the argumentation raised by the Respondent according to which the Claimant would not be entitled to training compensation in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, for the employment contract between the Claimant and the player had allegedly been terminated without just cause by the latter. 7. Therefore, the Chamber turned its attention to the facts that are pertinent from the assessment of the stated issue and recalled that the player, born on 29 February 1992, was registered with the Claimant from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2010 as an “Aspirant” and from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011 as a professional, until his move from the Claimant to the Respondent. 8. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the SASP was declared in judicial liquidation by the Tribunal de Commerce on 12th July 2011 and that, during the course of these liquidation proceedings the “nominated Commissioner” on 25 July 2011 informed the player about the liquidation process of the SASP and announced to him the early termination of his employment contract. 9. Equally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim for the payment of training compensation, stating that the decision of the SASP to enter into liquidation and the associated termination of the employment contract with the player constituted a unilateral breach of the employment contract without just cause by the Claimant leading to the consequences as stipulated in art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, i.e. that no training compensation fell due. 10. The Chamber went on to take due note of the Claimant’s position regarding the termination of the employment contract with the player. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Claimant stressed that the employment contract with the player did not expire but was cancelled due to the liquidation of the SASP. 11. On account of the above, the Chamber highlighted that the central issue in the matter at stake would be, thus, to determine as to whether art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is applicable to the case. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the content of art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that training compensation is not due if the former club terminates the player’s contract without just cause. A contrario, only if the club had just cause to terminate the relevant employment contract, would it still be entitled to training compensation. 12. In this respect, the Chamber stressed that the definition of just cause and whether just cause exists shall be established in accordance with the merits of each particular case. In this context, the Chamber thought to emphasize the content of art. 13 of the Regulations and the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, and stressed that the unilateral termination of a contract without just cause is to be vehemently discouraged. 13. Pertaining to the statement of the Claimant that the employment contract with the player did not expire but was cancelled due to the liquidation of the SASP, taking full account of all the circumstances regarding the abovementioned liquidation proceedings, the Chamber first had to analyse whether or not the Respondent had terminated the contract with just cause, i.e. for a valid reason as per art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 14. With regard to the particularities of the case, the Chamber recalled that it was undisputed between the parties that the player at no time showed any behavior which would have constituted a violation of the terms of the employment contract justifying the early termination of such contract. On the contrary, it was undisputed that the only reason for the unilateral termination of the employment contract with the player were the financial difficulties of the Claimant and the related liquidation of the SASP pursuant to the abovementioned decision of the Tribunal de Commerce on 12 July 2011. In the light of this, the Chamber formed the belief that the termination of the relevant employment contract was by no means imputable to the player and concluded that in fact the Claimant was solely responsible for the liquidation of the SASP and the consequent termination of the contract. 15. Against such background, the Chamber decided that there was no valid reason or just cause for the unilateral termination of the employment contract. Thus, the Chamber thought to emphasize that a club that has terminated a contract with a player without having a just cause to do so shall not be able to retain any rights which depend on such a rightful termination. Therefore, in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent. 16. Having established the above, the Chamber deemed it unnecessary to analyze any further arguments put forward by either party and concluded that the Claimant’s claim for training compensation was to be rejected. 17. 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 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. 18. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 360,000 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). 19. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 20. Considering the case at hand and its complex factual and legal issues, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 18,000. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club G, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 18,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Club G. Given that the Claimant, Club G, 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 13,000 has to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXX: ***** 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