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 Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club C, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club E, from country L as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player G

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 Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club C, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club E, from country L as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player G I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country P Football Federation, the player, Player G (hereinafter: the player), born in December 1988, was registered as an amateur with the following country P clubs: - Club C as from 6 April 1998 until 12 October 2004; - Club A as from 13 October 2004 until 25 August 2005; - Club C as from 26 August 2005 until 22 November 2006; - Club N as from 23 November 2006 until 2 January 2008; - Club C as from 3 January 2008 until 5 August 2008; - Club P as from 6 August 2008 until 29 December 2008; - Club D as from 30 December 2008 until 22 October 2009; - Club P as from 23 October 2009 until 15 September 2010. 2. The country D Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club H, as from 16 September 2010 until 31 January 2011 as an amateur. The country D Football Federation issued the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) in favor of country L Football Federation on 2 February 2011. 3. The football seasons in country P during the period of time the player was registered with Club C (hereinafter: the Claimant) started on 1 August and ended on 31 July of the following year until the season 1999/2000. The country P Football Federation further confirmed that the 2000/2001 sporting season in country P ran as from 1 August until 30 June of the following year. As from the season 2001/2002, the sporting season in country P ran as from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 4. The country P Football Federation confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it. 5. The country L Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with Club E (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 10 February 2011. 6. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount EUR 30,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e. the 2010/2011 season. 7. On 22 June 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent in “July 2011”. 8. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 80,410.96 plus 5% interest as of August 2011. 9. On 29 October 2013, the Respondent referred in its reply to art. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, stating that the player’s salary with the club, amounting to EUR 800 per month, was far below the social minimum in country L, amounting to EUR 1,921.03, according to art. L.222-1 of the working-code of country L du travail. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the player cannot be considered a professional. Moreover, the Respondent stated that the player did not have an employment contract with the club but a “contrat de louage d’ouvrage” which, according to the Respondent, does not constitute an employment contract. 10. In continuation, the Respondent stated that it is a purely amateur club, since its training sessions take place during the evening and not during the day. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the player was already 22 years old when he signed the contract with the club and that, therefore, the monthly remuneration of the player has a different dimension than in case of a younger player who is wanted by professional clubs. 11. In addition, the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and stated that none of the previous clubs of the player have offered him a professional contract or showed their interest in keeping the services of the player. Further, the Respondent explained that it has never recruited a player for whom it had to pay training compensation of more than 20% of the financial capacity of the club, especially not for a player who played only one match for the club’s first team and for whom it did not receive any compensation upon his subsequent transfer to a country C club. The Respondent stated that the player did never have professional status in country L and that, therefore, no training compensation is due. 12. Finally, in case FIFA decides that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation, the Respondent stated that the amount of training compensation shall be reduced, in view of the club’s annual budget of EUR 620,000, and should anyway be paid by the player’s former club, Club H, which is of a similar level as the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent referred to jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which, according to the Respondent, established that a decision of FIFA must be based on objective criteria such as the number of matches played in the club’s first team. 13. As to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant stated that this provision only applies to the player’s former club, Club H. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that it is a purely amateur club, belonging to the category IV, which does not have any professional players at its disposal. 14. According to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent and the player signed a “contract de louage d’ouvrage” on 20 January 2011, valid as from that date until the end of the 2011/2012 season. 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 22 June 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 10 February 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging 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. 5. In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 80,410.96, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 6. Likewise, the DRC noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, stating that the player’s salary with the club, amounting to EUR 800 per month, was far below the social minimum in country L, amounting to EUR 1,921.03, according to art. L.222-1 of the corking-code of country L. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the player cannot be considered a professional in view of art. 2 of the Regulations. Moreover, the DRC noted that the Respondent stated that the player did not have an employment contract with the club but a “contrat de louage d’ouvrage” which, according to the Respondent, does not constitute an employment contract. 7. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and stated that none of the previous clubs of the player had offered him a professional contract or showed their interest in keeping the services of the player. The Respondent stated that the player did never have professional status in country L and that, therefore, no training compensation is due. 8. Finally, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s submission that in case it decides that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation, the Respondent stated that the amount of training compensation shall be reduced, in view of the club’s annual budget of EUR 620,000, and should anyway be paid by the player’s former club, Club H, which is of a similar level as the Respondent. 9. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Chamber held that it first had to establish whether the player held the amateur status or the professional status at the time he was registered with the Respondent. To this end, the Chamber examined the “contract de louage d’ouvrage” that was uploaded in the Transfer Matching System (TMS). 10. In this regard, the members of the Chamber duly noted that, according to said contract, the player was entitled to receive from the Respondent, in exchange for his services during the 2010/2011 season, the fixed amount of EUR 800 per month, as well as EUR 100 if he played in the starting eleven and EUR 50 if he participated as a substitute. Furthermore, during the 2011/2012 season, the player was entitled to receive the fixed amount of EUR 800 per month, as well as EUR 150 if he played in the starting eleven and EUR 75 if he participated as a substitute. Additionally, the player was entitled to receive a bonus amounting to EUR 25 per point, travel expenses in the amount of EUR 1,000 per season, as well as EUR 2,000 in case the Respondent would become the national champion during the seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 and EUR 500 in case the Respondent would qualify for a European competition at the end of the seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. 11. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that “A professional is a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs. All other players are considered to be amateurs”. 12. Taking into consideration the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations as well as the amounts payable to the player on the basis of the aforementioned contract, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that the player was in fact paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurred. In this regard, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that a player’s remuneration as per the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of the player and that the legal nature or the designation of the contract is of no relevance in this regard. This approach has been confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in its decision CAS 2006/A/XXXX, whereby the Panel also emphasized that the definition contained in the mentioned provision is the only ground to establish a player’s status. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber pointed out that according to said decision, the classification of a player made by the association of his club is not decisive to determine the status of a player. 13. Equally, the Chamber highlighted that the second element contained in said art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, i.e. the existence of a written contract, is met. 14. On account of all the above, the Chamber concurred that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent. 15. Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training compensation. In this context, the Chamber started by stating 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 professional is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. 16. The aforementioned having been established, the Chamber then referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to another association inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). In this regard, the Chamber indicated that, since the player moved from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the Chamber concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 17. However, in this regard and with reference to the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant did not offer the player a contract, the Chamber pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player and not with the Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant was not the player’s former club, since the player was registered with four other clubs after he had left the Claimant (cf. point I./1. and I./2. above). 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). 18. On account of all of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 19. 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. 20. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 7 December 1988 and was registered with the Claimant as from 6 April 1998 until 12 October 2004, as well as from 26 August 2005 until 22 November 2006 and from 3 January 2008 until 5 August 2008. 21. Therefore, the DRC considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 August 2000 until 12 October 2004, as well as from 26 August 2005 until 22 November 2006 and from 3 January 2008 until 5 August 2008. 22. Furthermore, the DRC recalled that the Respondent belonged to the category III within UEFA, which corresponds to the amount of EUR 30,000 per year, and the Claimant belonged to category IV within UEFA, which corresponds to EUR 10,000 per year. 23. In view of all of the above and taking into account the amount claimed as well as art. 6 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is, in principle, liable to pay the amount of EUR 80,410.96 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 24. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent had, on a subsidiary note, requested the Chamber to consider a possible reduction of the amount of training compensation payable to the Claimant. In particular, the Respondent is of the opinion that the payment of training compensation amounting to EUR 105,000 (together with the claims lodged by Club P and Club A, from country P) would not be in a reasonable relation to the Respondent’s yearly budget of EUR 620,000. In addition, the DRC noted that the Respondent alleged that the player had remained registered with it for four months only and that the player had only played one single match in the first team of the Respondent during these four months. 25. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber may review disputes concerning the amount of training compensation payable and shall have discretion to adjust this amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under review. In this regard, the members of the Chamber were, however, eager to emphasize that such possibility allowed by the Regulations would, in any case, have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. 26. In this context, and reverting to the Respondent’s arguments (cf. point II./24. above), the Chamber pointed out that, according to art. 20 and art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, and as pointed out by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the case CAS 2006/A/XXXX Club N/ Club T & country F Football Federation, the player’s first registration as a professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday is, in itself, sufficient to trigger the right of training clubs to claim training compensation. Moreover, in the aforementioned case, in which the CAS also dealt with a request to reduce the amount of training compensation, the CAS highlighted that the Regulations do not set out any minimum length of the contractual relationship between the player and the club where he signs his first professional contract. 27. Similar to the aforementioned considerations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed that the allegation that the player only played one match in the first team could not be taken into account as an element to reduce the amount of training compensation. 28. What is more, the DRC underlined that the Respondent had not substantiated its request with any pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In fact, the Respondent merely alleged that the amount payable would be disproportionate without having produced any evidence to corroborate such allegation. 29. On account of these considerations and in the absence of any well-founded arguments and documentation in support of the Respondent’s request to adjust the amount, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber had no alternative but to decide that the amount of training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant could not be adjusted and that therefore the amount of EUR 80,410.96 is payable. 30. Moreover, taking into account the Claimant’s claim, the DRC decided that the Respondent has to pay interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as from 1 August 2011 until the date of effective payment. 31. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 32. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 80,410.96 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 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 33. As a result, and taking into account that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues as well as the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 6,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club C, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club E, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 80,410.96 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 August 2011 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 currency of country H 6,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1. The amount of currency of country H 4,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 4.2. The amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 4.2. above are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives