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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club G, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country F as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player O

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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club G, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country F as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player O I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Association (hereinafter: country B Football Association), the player O (hereinafter: the player), born in April 1995, was registered with its affiliated club, Club G (hereinafter: the Claimant), as an amateur as from 1 July 2005 until 30 June 2010. 2. On 17 September 2010, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Sub-Committee rejected the application made by the country F Football Federation (hereinafter: country F Football Federation) for the approval prior to the international transfer of the player in accordance with art. 19 par. 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). 3. Therefore, the player was only registered with Club L, from country F (hereinafter: the Respondent) upon approval of a second application in front of the Players’ Status Sub-Committee. In the meantime, i.e. from 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011, the player apparently trained with the country F club. 4. The country F Football Federation confirmed that, on 1 July 2011, the player was registered with the Respondent as an “Aspirant”. 5. The football season in country B runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following calendar year. 6. The country B Football Association confirmed that the Claimant belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during the seasons when the player was registered with it. 7. The country F Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA) during the period of training of the player concerned. 8. On 30 August 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training compensation for the transfer of the player to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 300,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from the 31st day of registration with his new club. In particular, the Claimant requests training compensation for the seasons 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10 for an amount of EUR 75,000 per season. 9. In support of its claim, the Claimant holds that the regulations of the country B Football Association state that all contracts between amateur players and clubs shall be either signed or terminated between 1 April and 30 April of the respective year, whereas the registration or deregistration shall come into effect on the following 1 July of the respective year. In particular, said regulations in art. 926 par. 1 stipulate the following: Original French version: “Afin de faire usage des possibilités offertes par la démission et la réaffiliation de l’amateur démissionnant lors de la période du 1 jusqu’au 30 avril inclus, l'affilié doit signifier, à peine de nullité, sa démission par lettre recommandée au Secrétaire général et à son club d'affiliation et, à peine de déchéance, dans la période du 1 avril au 30 avril inclus dans la période susmentionnée.“ Free English translation: “To make use of the possibilities offered by the termination and re-affiliation of an amateur resigning during the period between 1 and 30 April inclusively, the affiliate must send, in order to avoid nullity, his resignation by registered letter to the Secretary General and the affiliated club and, under penalty of forfeiture, with the period from 1 April to 30 April.” 10. Therefore, according to the Claimant, the player should be considered as still having been registered with the Claimant until 1 July 2010 with the effect that training compensation also has to be paid for the entire 2009/2010 season. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant indicates that the 2010 edition of the Regulations should be applicable, as only the exact date when the player signed his first contract as a professional player should be the decisive point in time. Since the player signed his first contract as an “Aspirant”, which should equally be regarded as a professional contract, on 19 April 2011 and therefore after 1 October 2010, only the 2010 edition of the Regulations should apply. 12. In its reply, the Respondent stated that only EUR 38,301 would be due, since the player already deregistered from the Claimant on 29 April 2010, which is why the Claimant could not claim training compensation for the full 2009/2010 season. 13. In addition to that, the Respondent claims that the 2009 edition of the Regulations should be applicable in order to calculate the training compensation regarding the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent, as art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 does not apply retroactively. Hence, only an indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA should be payable as training compensation to the Claimant. 14. Moreover, the Respondent refers to an alleged correspondence from FIFA, apparently transmitted to the Respondent by the country F Football Federation, stating that at the occasion of an informal and general discussion, and not connected to a specific case, the members of the chamber present for this occasion held the opinion that the relevant provision in this case should not be applied retroactively. Should this interpretation be confirmed, it seems that the last sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations should only apply to the seasons after the entry into force of said stipulation. 15. In its replica, the Claimant reiterates its previous position, indicating that according to art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and the commentary thereto as well as according to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (i.e. DRC Decision 4111875 rendered on 7 April 2011), the date on which the player signed his first contract as a professional should be the decisive element when determining which edition of the Regulations is applicable. The aforementioned decision indicates that training compensation is due when the player is registered for the first time as a professional with his new Association, or if a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations (whether during or at the end of his contract) before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and that any dispute must be assessed according to the regulations that were in force when the player was registered as a professional for the first time. 16. As a consequence of the above, the Claimant held that that the 2010 edition of the Regulations is to be applied to the present dispute retroactively, stressing that, should the Dispute Resolution Chamber not apply art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the payable amount of training compensation for the player, aged 12 to 15 during the seasons 2006/07 until 2009/2010, would always be EUR 10,000. This, regardless of the circumstances, which would stand in contrast to the ratio legis of said article, i.e. the protection of minors. 17. As to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Claimant states that it could not offer a professional contract to the player as he was only 15 years old when deregistering from the Claimant and had thus not reached his 16th birthday. 18. In its final position, the Respondent reiterated its previous argumentation, putting again focus on the non-retroactivity of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations as well as on the fact that the Claimant has not made a contract offer to the player in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. In a first instance, 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 30 August 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 (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 (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 1 July 2011, the 2010 edition of 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 stated that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 300,000, indicating that the player had signed a professional contract as an “Aspirant” with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 6. Likewise, the DRC noted that the Respondent argued that the Claimant has not made a contract offer to the player in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 7. In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 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. 8. Moreover, the Chamber referred, in particular, 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). More specifically, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 which stipulates, inter alia, that the former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract. 9. In view of the above, the Chamber stated that, first and foremost, it had to verify whether art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the present case as lex specialis, and, in the affirmative, to determine if the Claimant had complied with the said provision in order to be entitled to training compensation. 10. As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is concerned, the Chamber stated that, as the player moved from a club in country B to a club in country F, i.e. moved from one Association to another Association inside the territory of the EU, the said article is applicable. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the aforementioned provision applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 11. On account of the aforesaid, the Chamber analysed whether or not the Claimant had complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations in order to be entitled to training compensation. 12. In this sense, the Chamber emphasized that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, if the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. The former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered mail at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract (cf. art. 6 par. 3 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations). 13. In this context, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant merely stated that it could not offer a professional contract to the player as he was only a 15-year-old amateur player when deregistering from the Claimant and had thus not reached his 16th birthday. In this regard, the Chamber firstly recalled that in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence, which was confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is applicable whether the player is registered as an amateur or a professional with his former club (cf. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of 27 April 2006, no. 461185, consideration no. II./10. et sq. and CAS 2006/A/XXXX Av/N FC, considerations no. 8.6 et sqq.). Secondly, reverting to the Claimants allegation of not having been in a position to offer the player a contract due to his age, the Chamber emphasized that this remained a mere assertion and had not been corroborated by any means with documentary evidence. Therefore, referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC deemed that the Claimant’s line of argument could not be upheld as its allegation remained unsubstantiated. 14. Based on the above, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had, thus, not brought forward any indication that it had, in fact, offered the player a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 2 and sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, nor was there any documentary evidence on file that the Claimant had done so (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). Therefore, the Chamber only had to analyse if the Claimant could justify that it is nevertheless entitled to training compensation. 15. In continuation, the Chamber went on to examine whether the Claimant had provided sufficient proof as regards the latter’s justification to claim training compensation. The Chamber considered that such justification can, in general, be manifested by a club by displaying a bona fide interest in keeping the player in question in its team and by showing a proactive attitude vis-à-vis the respective player, so as to clearly manifest that the club intends to count on the player for the future. However, the Chamber, also referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, first of all noticed that the burden of proof to demonstrate any justification to receive training compensation notwithstanding not having offered a contract to the player, i.e. a bona fide and genuine interest of the Claimant in retaining the player, lies with the Claimant. Equally, the members of the Chamber recalled, according to the well-established jurisprudence, that this justification is limited to very exceptional circumstances. 16. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had not provided any proof that it had in fact shown a bona fide and genuine interest in retaining the player. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the aforementioned considerations could lead to no other conclusion than the Claimant having failed to comply with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber determined that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the training and education of the player. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s claim had to be rejected. 17. 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. 18. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 300,000 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 consideration that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings. 20. Considering the above, and taking into account the complexity of the case, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 18,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. ***** 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. 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 Claimant has to pay the amount of currency of country H 13,000, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: ***** 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