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 28 March 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club D, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country S as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player M

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 28 March 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club D, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country S as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player M I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport and a confirmation issued by country G Football Federation the player, Player M (hereinafter: the player), born in April 1990, was registered as an amateur with the country G clubs: - Club R as from 31 January 2007 until 3 August 2007; - Club D as from 4 August 2007 until 15 June 2009. 2. The country G Football Federation explained that the player was deregistered from Club D (hereinafter: the Claimant) on 15 June 2009. On 9 July 2009, the country S Football Federation requested the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the player in order to be registered with its affiliated club, Club B (hereinafter: the Respondent). On 10 July 2009, the ITC was issued by the country G Football Federation. 3. The football seasons in country G during the period of time the player was registered with Club D started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 4. The country G Football Federation confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) during the 2007/2008 season, and to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during the 2008/2009 season. 5. According to the player passport issued by the country S Football Federation, the player was registered as an amateur with the following country S clubs: - Club C as from 29 January 2010 until 22 August 2010; - Club P as from 23 August 2010 until 9 August 2011; - Club B as from 10 August 2011. 6. Furthermore, the country S Football Federation informed FIFA that no license was issued in favor of the player between 10 July 2009 and 29 January 2010. 7. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it. 8. On 21 December 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 1 July 2009, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. 9. The Claimant explained that it had contacted the Respondent many times since the player was registered with the Respondent in order to receive training compensation. However, both the Respondent and the country S Football Federation indicated that the player had been registered as an amateur with the Respondent and, therefore, the Claimant had not contacted FIFA until it learned about the content of the player’s employment contract with the Respondent, dated 5 May 2009, in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) when the player was transferred from the Respondent to a country B club in October 2012. Consequently, the Claimant argued that the player was a professional since 1 July 2009 and that its claim is not prescribed since the event giving rise to the dispute arose only in October 2012. 10. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 165,000. 11. On 8 May 2013, the Respondent replied to the claim and referred to FIFA’s correspondence dated 1 February 2013, by means of which the Claimant was informed that its claim appeared to be prescribed, stating that this letter is to be considered a decision and is, therefore, to be considered res judicata. 12. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had not offered the player an employment contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). Moreover, the Respondent stated that the player has always been registered as an amateur with the country S Football Federation as well as with the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional. Finally, the Respondent indicated that the player had been registered with the Club C, during the 2009/2010 season, before having been transferred to the Respondent. Therefore, if the Claimant is deemed to be entitled to receive training compensation, it should address its request to Club C. 13. As to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Claimant stated that it started discussing a possible extension of the player’s registration with the club for the season 2009/2010 somewhat three months before the end of the 2008/2009 season. According to the Claimant, it did not have an employment contract with the player prior to the aforementioned discussions. Said discussions were interrupted when the player was in country C for a short period of time. Subsequently, the player signed an employment contract with the Respondent on 5 May 2009. Hence, the Claimant could not continue its discussions with the player. 14. The employment contract between the player and the Respondent, drafted in the country S language and dated 5 May 2009, stipulated, inter alia, the following: “II. Que ambas partes consideran de recíproco interés que el Jugador se integre en la plantilla de jugadores de fútbol del equipo “B” del Club B para las temporadas 2009/2010, 2010/2011, 2011/2012 (3 Temporadas)…pudiendo ser ampliado dicho contrato por tres temporadas deportivas más, esto es hasta el 30 de junio de 2015, en el supuesto de que el CLUB quiera incorporarlo al primer equipo. (…) TERCERA.- DURACIÓN El presente contrato tendrá una duración inicial de tres temporadas futbolísticas, comprendidas entre la fecha de hoy y el 30 de junio de 2012. (…) QUINTA.- REMUNERACIÓN 5.1. El Club se obliga a abonar al Jugador durante las temporadas deportivas 2009/2010 a 2011/2012 las siguientes cantidades por los conceptos que se señalan: 5.1.1. En concepto de sueldo mensual y pagas extraordinarias: la cantidad de 1.700.- € mensuales por doce mensualidades, más dos pagas extraordinarias del mismo importe que se pagarán en los meses de junio y diciembre. 5.1.2. En concepto de Ficha de contrato: Temporada 2009/10: TREINTA Y SEIS MIL (36.000.-) EUROS Temporada 2010/11: CUARENTA Y DOS MIL (42.000.-) EUROS Temporada 2011/12: CUARENTA Y OCHO MIL (48.000.-) EUROS El pago de la ficha de cada una de las temporadas deportivas se abonará en pagos trimestrales los días 30 de septiembre, 31 de diciembre, 31 de marzo y 30 de junio de cada una de las temporadas. 5.1.3. El Club proporcionará al Jugador 600.- € mensuales de ayuda a la vivienda. 5.1.4 (…) En cada una de las temporadas el CLUB facilitará a EL JUGADOR dos billetes aéreos, en clase turista, country S-country C-country C”. 15. In English: “II. Both parties consider a mutual interest that the Player is integrated in the B squad of Club B for the seasons 2009/2010, 2010/2011, 2011/2012 (3 seasons)…with an option to extend the contract for 3 more seasons, until 30 June 2015, in the event that the club wants to incorporate the Player in the A squad. (…) Third.- Duration The present contract will have an initial duration of three football seasons, as of today’s date until 30 June 2012. (…) Fifth.- Remuneration 5.1 The club is obliged to pay the Player during the sporting seasons 2009/2010 until 2011/2012 the following amounts for the concepts as identified: 5.1.1 As monthly salary and extraordinary payments: the amount of 1.700.- € per month during twelve months, as well as two extraordinary payments of the same amount which will be paid in the months June and December. 5.1.2 For the registration of the contract: Season 2009/10: thirty six thousand (36.000,-) EUROS Season 2010/11: forty two thousand (42.000.-) EUROS Season 2011/12: forty eight thousand (48.000.-) EUROS The payment for the registration for each of the sporting seasons will be made in 4 instalments on 30 September, 31 December, 31 March and 30 June of each of the seasons. 5.1.3 The club will pay the Player 600.- € monthly as accommodation support. 5.1.4 (…) In each of the seasons the club will provide the Player with 2 flight tickets, in economy class, country S – country C – country S”. 16. In a clarification regarding the question why, on 9 July 2009, the country S Football Federation requested the issuance of the ITC from the country G Football Federation for the player in order to be registered with the Respondent when, subsequently, the player was registered only on 29 January 2010 with Club C, the Respondent explained that it had not processed the application for a license for the player, since he was participating in the under-20 FIFA World Cup with country C and when he returned to the Respondent, the deadline to apply for a license had passed. Furthermore, the Respondent explained that it had informed the country S Football Federation on 28 January 2010 that it renounced the player’s ITC so that he could be registered with Club C. 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 21 December 2012. Consequently, the 2012 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 2012 edition 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 August 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 165,000, 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 argued that FIFA’s correspondence dated 1 February 2013, by means of which the Claimant was informed that its claim appeared to be prescribed, is to be considered a decision and is, therefore, to be considered res judicata. 7. Equally, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s submission that the player had always been registered as an amateur with the country S Football Federation as well as with the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional. 8. Finally, the DRC noted that the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and stated that the Claimant had not offered the player an employment contract. 9. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Chamber held that it first had to address the Respondent’s submission that FIFA’s correspondence dated 1 February 2013, by means of which the Claimant was informed that its claim appeared to be prescribed, is to be considered a decision and is, therefore, to be considered res judicata. 10. In this regard, the members of the Chamber deemed it essential to emphasise that the aforementioned correspondence is nothing else than an informative communication addressed to the Claimant and does not constitute a decision. 11. In this regard, the members of the Chamber duly noted that, according to the player passport issued by the country S Football Federation, the player was registered with the Respondent on 11 August 2011. Given that the Claimant lodged its claim in front of FIFA on 21 December 2012, the DRC held that the present petition was submitted to FIFA within the two year limitation period as stipulated in art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the claim is admissible. 12. Turning its attention to the Respondent’s submission that the player had always been registered as an amateur with the country S Football Federation and the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional, 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”. 13. 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 employment contract dated 5 May 2009, duly signed by the player and the Respondent and valid during the sporting seasons 2009/2010, 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, 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/1177, 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. 14. 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. 15. On account of all the above, the Chamber concluded that there was no evidence that the player was actually an amateur player as claimed by the Respondent and the country S Football Federation and concurred that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent. 16. In relation to the Respondent’s argument that the player had been registered with Club C during the 2009/2010 season and that, therefore, the Claimant should address its request to Club C, the Chamber stressed that the Respondent had not provided any evidence that the player was already to be considered a professional with Club C. In other words, the Respondent had not proven that the classification of the player as an amateur by the country S Football Federation with Club C had been incorrect. Therefore, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that, on the basis of the documentation presented, the player’s first registration as a professional occurred with the Respondent on 11 August 2011. 17. For the sake of clarity, the Chamber wished to point out that it is well aware that it based its decision to establish that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent in August 2011 on an employment contract dated 5 May 2009. However, the Chamber is satisfied that the aforementioned contract was still applicable, since i) the contract ran until 30 June 2012, ii) the Respondent never contested that the contract was no longer valid, and iii) the contract was uploaded into TMS upon the player’s transfer to country B. 18. 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. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the player was registered with the Respondent for the first time as a professional before the end of his 23rd birthday and that, therefore, in principle training compensation is due. 19. 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. 20. 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 two other clubs after he had left the Claimant (cf. point I./5. 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). 21. On account of all of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 22. 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. 23. In continuation, the DRC referred to art. 6 par. 1 of 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 the EU/EEA. 24. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 29 April 1990 and was registered with the Claimant as from 4 August 2007 until 15 June 2009. 25. Therefore, the DRC considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 4 August 2007 until 15 June 2009, i.e. for 11 months of the season 2007/2008 (season of the player’s 18th birthday) and 11 months of the season 2008/2009 (season of the player’s 19th birthday). 26. Furthermore, the DRC recalled that the Respondent belonged to the category I within UEFA, which corresponds to the amount of EUR 90,000 per year, and the Claimant belonged to category I within UEFA, which corresponds to EUR 90,000 per year, during the 2007/2008 season, and to category II within UEFA, which corresponds to EUR 60,000 per year, during the 2008/2009 season. 27. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 151,250 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 28. 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. 29. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 165,000 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 Annex A). 30. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the numerous issues that had to be addressed, the complexity of the case as well as the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 25,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club D, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 151,250. 4. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of the date of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows : 6.1 The amount of currency of country H 20,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 6.2. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid to the Claimant. 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 3. and 6.2. 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives