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 9 May 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by Football Federation, of country P as Claimant against the club, Club X, of country H as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player A

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 9 May 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by Football Federation, of country P as Claimant against the club, Club X, of country H as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player A I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Federation of country P (hereinafter: FF or the Claimant) confirmed that the player A (hereinafter: the player), born on 30 November 1989, was registered in country P, as an amateur, with the following clubs: - Club N as of 6 June 2003 until 9 June 2005; - Club C as of 10 June 2008 until 29 August 2008. 2. The Football Federation of country P confirmed that the football seasons in country P run as from 1 January to 31 December. 3. The Football Federation of country H confirmed that the player was registered with the Hu Club D, from country H (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional, on 17 September 2008. 4. The Football Federation of country H confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) at the time the player was registered with it. 5. On 30 August 2010, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Football Federation of country P requested the amount of EUR 41,997.42 for the period between 6 June 2003 and 9 June 2005. 6. On 26 April 2011, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim by stating that it requested the Football Federation of country P to inform about the registration career of the player before transferring him. In this respect, the Respondent assessed that the Football Federation of country P replied in writing that the player had never been registered with any country P club, submitting a copy of the letter dated 5 August 2008 issued by the Football Federation of country P. 7. Moreover, the Respondent held that, upon request to the Football Federation of country P of the transfer of the player to the Respondent, the Football Federation of country P issued a new letter, dated 29 August 2008, rectifying that the player was actually registered with Club C (hereinafter: Club C). 8. In addition, the Respondent held that, in order to avoid paying any training compensation for the player, it requested an authorisation from Club C, which copy, dated 19 August 2008, was submitted. Furthermore, and in this respect, on 10 November 2008, Club C and the Respondent entered into an agreement which reads as follows: “1. Parties agree that […], Player A (place and date of birth: , 30.11.201989, passport: XXXX) […] are contracted players of [the Respondent]. 2. Club C declares that it will not claim for training or solidarity compensation or compensation of any other form now or in the future from [the Respondent] and that no other previous clubs of the players will have a claim for training or solidarity compensation or compensation of any other form from [the Respondent] now or in the future”. 9. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Claimant did not provide its response to the Respondent’s reply, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would take a decision on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (editions 2008 and 2012). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 August 2010. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that 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. 2. With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of the articles 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012). In accordance with art. 1 par. 1 of the aforementioned Regulations, which describes the scope of the relevant Regulations, in connection with articles 24 par. 1 and 22 d) of said Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by the Claimant for the training and education of the player, A in connection with the first registration of said player as a professional for the Respondent. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the Respondent on 17 September 2008, 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 (edition 2012, 2010, 2009 and 2008), the edition (2008) of the Regulations for 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 Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter and started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. First and foremost, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1 par. 1, as well as art. 2 of Annex 4 to the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when the player concerned is registered for the first time as a professional, or when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 6. The Chamber underlined that in the present case, it was an association and not a club which claimed payment of the training compensation. Therefore, it first had to analyse whether the conditions set forth in art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations were fulfilled. 7. The Chamber recapitulated that the aforementioned provision stipulates that if a link between a professional player and any of the clubs that trained him cannot be established within 18 months of his transfer, or if those clubs do not make themselves known within 18 months of the player’s first registration as a professional, the training compensation shall be paid to the association(s) of the country where the professional player was trained. 8. On this basis, the members of the Chamber pointed out that, at first, it had to analyse whether the time frame of 18 months for the possible establishment of a link between a professional player and a club had already elapsed after the transfer of the player to the Respondent, which is a prerequisite contained in art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 9. To that regard, the DRC stated that the transfer of the player from the involved club to the Respondent had taken place on 17 September 2008 and referred to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the training compensation should be paid by the new club no later than 30 days after the player’s registration. On the other hand, the DRC took note that the claim was lodged on 30 August 2010. 10. In addition, the DRC outlined that art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations mentions that the training compensation shall be paid to the association of the country where the professional was trained. Thus, another requirement in order for an association to be entitled to the relevant proportion of the training compensation is that such association can prove that the player was in fact trained. 11. In continuation, the Chamber took note of the fact that, in support of its claim, the Claimant submitted the player passport, which evidenced that the player was registered with , Club N from country P, as of 6 June 2003 until 9 June 2005. 12. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber took note that the required time frame of 18 months for the possible establishment of a link between the player and a training club had elapsed as well as that the player was indeed trained in country P during the period between 6 June 2003 and 9 June 2005. Therefore, the Claimant was, in principle, entitled to claim training compensation. 13. In continuation, the DRC acknowledged that the player, born on 30 November 1989, was, according to the Football Federation of country P, registered with its affiliated clubs, as an amateur, Club N from 6 June 2003 until 9 June 2005 as well as Club C from 10 June 2008 until 29 August 2008. 14. Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is requesting training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 41,997.42 for the period the player was allegedly registered with Club N, and, on the other hand, that the Respondent contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive any training compensation, arguing that, on the occasion of the transfer of the player, the Football Federation of country P had confirmed that the player was only registered for Club C before the Respondent registered the player. 15. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 to the Regulations, according to which the club, for which the player was registered for the first time as a professional, is responsible for paying training compensation in accordance with the players’ career history as provided for in the player passport. 16. In continuation, the DRC also reminded of art. 5 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates that professional, as well as amateur players, must be registered with an association to play for a club. In particular, the Chamber noted that said article clearly points out that it is the responsibility of an association to register the player. In the same line, the Chamber underlined that according to art. 7 of the Regulations, an association has to provide its affiliated club registering a player with a player passport indicating the complete player’s football career as from the season of his 12th birthday. 17. Furthermore, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent had asked the Claimant’s association for the registration career of the player before transferring him. 18. Taking into account the above, the DRC deemed important to underline that the Respondent absolutely complied with art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations by asking the responsible entity, i.e. the Football Federation of country P, in order to know the player’s career history. 19. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Chamber emphasised that on 29 August 2008, after having informed the Respondent that there were no records of the player, the Football Federation of country P had sent a letter to the Respondent, confirming that “the player is registered for Club C”. As a result, relying on this statement, the Respondent registered the player as a professional on 17 September 2008. 20. In addition, the DRC highlighted that, although being invited to provide its final comments, the Claimant failed to do so. 21. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC noted that the question if the Respondent could rely on the Football Federation of country P’s confirmation is fundamental to decide on the Claimant’s right to receive training compensation. 22. To that regard, the Chamber pointed out again that the Respondent proceeded, as foreseen in the Regulations, by turning to the national association in order to find out the player’s history. 23. On this basis, the DRC referred to its previous decisions in which it had underlined that a club registering a player has to turn for information to the respective association. 24. Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously concluded that the associations are the pertinent contact in order to receive correct information about the career of a player. Therefore, it decided that the Respondent could rely on the Football Federation of country P’s confirmation. 25. In view of the aforementioned and also with regard to the legal certainty, the DRC concluded that it was not acceptable for a club, which takes a player under contract based on the confirmation of the previous association and trusting that it would not have to pay training compensation, to be subsequently obliged to pay training compensation. 26. Taking into account all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised that based on the documentation at the time when the player was registered at the Football Federation of country H, the Respondent had no reason to pay training compensation. Consequently, the Chamber unanimously decided that the Respondent could not be obliged to do so later, based on changed documents issued by the same association. 27. Therefore, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 28. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training compensation costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 29. In this respect, the DRC reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 30. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 31. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 41,997.42 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 32. As a result, and taking into account the complexity of the case, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Football Federation of country P, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 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 Encl. CAS directives