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 Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player R

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 Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player R I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country S Football Federation on 17 July 2012, Player R, born in January 1991, was registered with its affiliated club, Club B (hereinafter: the Claimant) as follows: 2. However, the country S Football Federation confirmed on 14 January 2014 that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 29 October 1999 until 12 January 2011, as well as from 7 July 2011 until 30 June 2012. 3. Furthermore, according to the information contained in Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant belonged to category 1 since 1 October 2010. 4. In addition, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was on loan with the Club V, from country D, as from 13 January 2011 until 30 June 2011. 5. The football season in country S lasts from 1 July to 30 June of the following year. 6. On 17 July 2012, the player was registered with Club C, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent) as a professional player. 7. According to the information contained in the TMS at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, said club belonged to the category 1 (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year). 8. On 18 June 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting the payment of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 535,000 plus 5% interest as of 1 September 2012, and the procedural costs. 9. In this respect, the Claimant stated that, according to the Dispute Resolution Chamber jurisprudence, the loan of the player does not constitute a subsequent transfer of the player in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and that, as a result, the Claimant is of the opinion that it is entitled to receive transfer compensation. Status Registration dates Category “Benjamín” from 29 October 1998 until 30 June 1999 4 “Alevín” from 27 September 2001 until 30 June 2002 4 “Alevín” from 13 September 2002 until 30 June 2003 4 “Infantil” from 26 August 2003 until 30 June 2004 4 “Infantil” from 13 July 2004 until 30 June 2005 4 “Cadete” from 8 August 2005 until 30 June 2006 4 “Juvenil” from 6 September 2007 until 30 June 2008 4 “Juvenil” from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2009 4 “Juvenil” from 1 July 2009 4 “Juvenil” from 3 September 2009 until 30 June 2010 4 Amateur from 10 August 2010 until 26 August 2010 2 Professional from 27 August 2010 until 12 January 2011 2 Professional from 7 July 2011 until 30 June 2012 2 10. In addition, the Claimant stated that it had offered in writing an employment contract to the player on 26 April 2012, this is, more than two months before the end of his employment contract. 11. On 19 August 2013, the Respondent contested the Claimant’s allegations by asserting that, pursuant to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, “any loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism” and that, as a result, the loan of the player constitutes a subsequent transfer. 12. In this respect, the Respondent assessed that the loan “must be considered as the event which gave rise to the right of [the Claimant] to receive the training compensation from the country D club”. 13. As to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Respondent stated that “this different interpretation, contrary from the former statement constantly elaborated by FIFA DRC, in observance with the meaning of the [Regulations], cannot be accepted because it is clearly not in adherence with the ratio of the rules that manifestly state different criteria respect the distortion done by the FIFA Judicial Body of what the legislator wants to do equating, with reference to training compensation, a transfer on loan basis to a transfer on definitive basis”. 14. In addition, the Respondent stated that training compensation shall be paid to the club effectively involved in the training of the player and that “this is the intention of the legislator and the few recent DRC’s decisions acknowledges the literal meaning of the rules regarding the training compensation that equally considers the transfer on loan and on permanent basis”. 15. As a result, the Respondent claimed that, if any, only training compensation for the season 2011/2012 would be due. However, it is of the opinion that the player had terminated his training period before the season 2011/2012, since he was a professional player with “one of the most famous and glorious European clubs”, he played in the UEFA Champions League as well as in most important national and international competitions, he was regularly fielded and the terms and conditions of the employment contract with the Respondent were “absolutely not related to a player in training period, but rather a footballer that, notwithstanding his age, has to be considered a professional player whose education is already terminated”. 16. As to the contract offered by the Claimant to the player, the Respondent stated that on 9 January 2012 it had informed the Claimant about its intention to conclude an agreement with the player. Equally, the Respondent allegedly communicated the conclusion of the employment contract with the player on 25 January 2012. Therefore, and since the Claimant only offered to renew his employment contract on 26 April 2012, the Respondent is of the opinion that the Claimant acted in bad faith with the only intention to receive training compensation. The Respondent held that if the Claimant was indeed genuinely interested in the player’s services, it would have already made a contract offer to the player at the time it was informed the Respondent was negotiating a contract with the player. 17. As to the calculation, the Respondent asserted that it is wrong since the special provisions for transfers within the EU/EEA territory apply and according to the player passport issued by the country S Football Federation, the Claimant belonged to category 4 until the season 2009/2010 and to category 2 during the season 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. 18. In light of the above, the Respondent requested the rejection of the Claimant’s claim. In the alternative, the Respondent requested that only the season 2011/2012 is taken into account. In addition, the Respondent also requested FIFA to “value the conduct of the Claimant in the matter at hand and to refer to FIFA Disciplinary Committee” as well as to condemn [the Claimant] to pay procedural costs. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution 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 18 June 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 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 competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 21 February 2014 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member Mr M and the member Mr G refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member Mr G has the same nationality as the Respondent and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives, also the member Mr M refrained from participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations. 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 (editions 2012 and 2010), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 17 July 2012, the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: 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. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasized 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 this regard, the Chamber recalled that, considering the information provided by the country S Football Federation as well as the contents of art. 2 of the Regulations, the player, born in January 1991, was registered with the Claimant as an amateur from 29 October 1998 until 26 August 2010 and as a professional for the period between 27 August 2010 and 12 January 2011. Equally, the Chamber noted that, between 13 January 2011 and 30 June 2011, the player was registered on a loan basis with Club V and then went back to the Claimant for the period between 7 July 2011 and 30 June 2012. 7. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant claimed that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 535,000. 8. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that 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 and that, if any, only training compensation for the season 2011/2012 would be due to the Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent equally rejected the claim by stating that the training and education of the player was terminated prior to the 2011/2012 season and that, therefore, no training compensation was due to the Claimant. 9. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent held that the Claimant only offered the contract to the player after having been informed of the intention of the Respondent to offer a contract to the player and, therefore, that the Respondent is of the opinion that the Claimant acted in bad faith since it was not genuinely interested on the player. 10. Lastly, the Chamber underlined that the Respondent asserted that the Claimant, according to the information contained in the player passport, belonged to category 4 until the 2009/2010 season, and to the category 2 during the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 seasons and that, as a consequence, the amount of training compensation due, if any, would not be EUR 535,000. 11. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that five issues need 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?; 3) Did the Claimant comply with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations in order to be entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent? 4) Does a club that, after being informed of the intention of another club to hire the player, offers a contract to the player in accordance with the art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, lose its entitlement to training compensation?; and 5) What category(ies) belonged the Claimant to during the time the player was registered with it? 12. When addressing 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 sent. 3 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. 13. 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. 14. In this context, and turning its attention to the argument raised by the Respondent, the Chamber understood that the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant is not entitled to any training compensation for the period between the 1998/1999 and 2010/2011 seasons, 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 V constituted a subsequent transfer and consequently deprived the Claimant from its potential entitlement to training compensation for the period of time prior to such loan. 15. 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 21 (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. 16. In this respect, the Chamber deemed it at this point 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 sent. 3 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. 17. What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 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 V on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant, should be considered as one entire timeframe. 18. 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. 19. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent’s interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is incorrect and reiterated that the loan of the player to Club V cannot be considered to constitute a subsequent transfer which would trigger the consequences stipulated in art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 20. 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 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 21. 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. 22. In this respect, the Chamber 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). More specifically, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that, inside the EU/EEA, the final season of training may occur before the season of the player’s 21st birthday if it is established that the player completed his training before that time. 23. In view of the above, the Chamber stated that it first had to verify whether art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies to the present case as lex specialis. 24. 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. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 25. In this context, the Chamber emphasized 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 jeopardize the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation. 26. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In particular, the Chamber was of the view that the Respondent failed to provide enough evidence that the player had already terminated his training before the age of 21. 27. Finally, the Chamber outlined that even if a club is considered as one of the best clubs of the world, this does not necessarily mean that, every young player joining such club, is no longer in need of training. 28. In view of the above, the Chamber concurred that, in the specific matter at hand, 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. 29. Turning to the third issue, the Chamber acknowledged that it also had to verify whether the Claimant had complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations in order to be entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the player was already contractually bound and registered as a professional with the Claimant prior to his move to the Respondent. 30. 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). 31. In light of the above, the Chamber examined the documents presented by the Claimant and considered that the Claimant had indeed offered the player a contract of an equivalent value at least 60 days prior to the expiry of his contract. For the sake of good order, the Chamber pointed out that this was also not disputed by the Respondent in any way. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the Claimant had complied with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 32. Turning to the fourth issue, the Chamber referred once more to the rules applicable to training compensation. In this context, the Chamber underlined that the player was transferred within the EU territories at the end of his employment contract before the season of his 23 birthday and that the Claimant had offered an employment contract of a better value than the current one to the player in April 2012, this is 60 days prior to the expiration of his current employment contract, in accordance with the Regulations. 33. Furthermore, the Chamber referred once again to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. In particular, the Chamber underscored that the Respondent is of the opinion that the Claimant was not genuinely interested in the player when offering the contract, but failed to provide evidence in that respect. 34. With this established, and contrary to the Respondent’s opinion, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant fulfilled all the requirements in the Regulations and that, therefore, training compensation was, in general, due. 35. Turning its attention to the fifth issue, the Chamber duly noted that according to all the documents remitted it can be established that the player had been registered for the country S club in October 1998, which, according to the player passport issued by the country S Football Federation, belonged to category 4 (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) during the period between 29 October 1998 until 30 June 2010, and to category 2 (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) as of 10 August 2010 until 30 June 2012. 36. However, and in this context, the Chamber underscored that, according to the Claimant’s calculations, the latter belonged to category 1 (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year). 37. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that various provisions related to the training compensation always refer to the term “club”, and clearly establish that it is the responsibility of the new club to pay the training compensation which is calculated based on the categories into which all associations divide their clubs in accordance with the clubs’ financial investments. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the training costs are established on a confederation basis for each category of clubs. 38. Congruously, the Chamber reiterated that the clubs have to be allocated into four categories and not the teams of the clubs. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that, the relevant training compensation due to the country S club has to be calculated in accordance with the special provisions for transfers within the EU/EEA territory, taking into account the category of the country S club. 39. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the full time the player was registered with the Claimant, in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 40. As to the category of the Claimant, the Chamber emphasized that it is notorious that the Claimant is a top European club and that it is based in a country which clubs can be allocated in four different categories. Moreover, the Claimant has been in the first division of the country S Championships during the relevant period. Equally, the DRC also noted that the information contained in TMS, which entered into force in 1 October 2010, also confirms that the Claimant belonged to category 1. 41. In this context and considering all the above, the DRC was of the view that there are good reasons to deem that the allocation of the Claimant in category 2 is not justified in view of the specific circumstances of the present matter. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club category 1 shall apply to the Claimant. 42. 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 stipulates that as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former club, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself and, thus, it is calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club. 43. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 6 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 EU/EEA. However, since in the matter at hand both clubs belong to the same category, the provision is irrelevant in this context. 44. In continuation, the Chamber observed that according to the documentation on file as well as the foregoing considerations, both the Claimant and the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 29 October 1998 until 12 January 2011 as well as that the player was loaned to Club V as from 13 January 2011 until 30 June 2011 and then, the player was again registered for the Claimant for the period between 7 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. 45. Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 535,000. 46. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of 1 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. 47. Lastly, the Chamber referred to 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. 48. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 535,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of H 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 49. 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 currency of country H 18,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Club B, within 30 days as of the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 535,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. If 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. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant, Club B, is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country B 18,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country B 13,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Club B. 6. The Claimant, Club B, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance 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