F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player S

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player S I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country G on 16 June 2013, player S (hereinafter: the player), born on 3 April 1990, was registered with its affiliated club P, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 22 September 2003 until 30 June 2012. 2. Equally, the Football Federation of country G confirmed that Claimant belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) at the time the player was registered with said club. 3. The football season in country G lasts from 1 July to 30 June of the following year. 4. The Football Federation of country I confirmed that the player was registered with the Club X, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional player on 16 August 2012. 5. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, said club belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year). 6. On 18 August 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation for the subsequent transfer of a professional player from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 470,000 plus 5% p.a. as of the due date as well as the advance and procedural costs. 7. In this respect, the Claimant stated that the player signed his first professional contract with it on 2 February 2007. Equally, the Claimant stated that the player signed a new employment contract on 3 July 2007 valid until 30 June 2012, and that said contract was amended on 23 September 2008. 8. The employment contract dated 23 September 2008 provided for a salary of EUR 300,000 for the 2011/2012 season, as well as a bonus, by means of which if the player participated in the 30% to 60% of the official matches he would receive the corresponding percentage over the amount of EUR 200,000, or EUR 200,000 in the event he participated in more than 60% of the official matches. In addition, the player would receive a car, a mobile phone and a monthly house rent of EUR 1,500. Furthermore, there was a buy-out clause of EUR 9,000,000, 2.5% of which would be for the player in the event a third club exercised that option. 9. Equally, the Claimant held that, as of 16 December 2011, the country G media started to report that the player was negotiating with the Respondent. 10. In this respect, the Claimant held having requested, on 21 and 22 December 2011, both the Respondent and the player to stop the negotiations since that behaviour was in breach of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and was directly damaging the Claimant. In this regard, the Claimant provided a copy of a correspondence dated 23 December 2011 allegedly sent from the Respondent to the Claimant in which the Club X supposedly asserted that it had not had any contact with the player. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that on 11 January 2012 it was informed by the Respondent that the Club X was going to propose an employment contract to the player. 12. As a consequence, on 12 January 2012, the Claimant sent a registered mail to the player offering him an employment contract. In this respect, the Claimant enclosed a copy of an offer of a better value than the current contract of the player. 13. In this respect, the Claimant declared that the player replied on 27 January 2012 that he only started to negotiate with the Respondent on 1 January 2012 and rejected the Claimant’s employment contract offer. 14. The Claimant concluded by holding that the Respondent acted on bad faith since it denied to be negotiating with the player more than six months prior to the expiration of the employment contract between the Claimant and the player and, also did not reply the request of the Claimant to pay training compensation for the transfer of the player. 15. On 27 September 2013, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant by stating that the media exaggerated and invented news and that the articles are, therefore, not a substantial evidence to hold that the player and the Respondent were negotiating before 11 January 2012 and that, hence, the Respondent had acted in accordance with the Regulations. 16. Moreover, the Respondent rejected that the registered mail allegedly sent by the Claimant to the player on 12 January 2012 contained an offer as per art. 6 par. 3 Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In particular, the Respondent stated that the wording of said correspondence referred to a proposal and not to a formal offer. 17. In this respect, the Respondent also assessed that the Claimant only proved that the correspondence was sent, but failed to provide any evidences as to whether the player effectively received it. 18. In addition, the Respondent stated that it was obvious that the player had terminated his training and education before being transferred to country I since he was regularly playing with the Claimant, a club which participates in the Europa League and the Champions League, and even obtained the acknowledgement as Most Valuable Player (MVP) on his first match with the Club P from country G on 7 January 2007. In this respect, the Respondent also stated that the player played three friendly matches with the U-19 national team and one with the U-21 national as well as was selected by UEFA in the list of U-19 names to note. As a consequence, and since the Respondent is of the opinion that the player terminated his training in the 2006/2007 season (i.e. the season of the 17th birthday of the player), said club asserted that, if any, only EUR 95,000 would be due as training compensation. 19. In light of the foregoing, the Respondent requested the rejection of the claim and, on the alternative, the reduction of the compensation payable to the Claimant. In addition, the Respondent requested that, in all cases, the Claimant bears the expenses of the proceedings. 20. On 6 December 2013, the Claimant stated that the Respondent did not deny to have negotiated with the player before 1 January 2012 but that, on the contrary, the Claimant held that The Respondent only assessed that there are not enough evidences supporting the Claimant’ statement. 21. In this respect, the Claimant also held that the timeline was clear, i.e. media reported in December 2011 that the player and the Respondent were negotiating, only on 11 January 2012 and after having denied it upon request of the Claimant in December 2011, the Respondent informed the Club P from country G that there were on-going negotiations with the player, and the player was eventually registered for the Respondent. Therefore, it is a “common sense outcome” that the Respondent indeed negotiated with the player more than 6 months prior to the expiration of his employment contract with the Claimant. 22. As to the Respondent’s opinion regarding the alleged proposal which was not an offer in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Claimant stated that it is clear that it forwarded in writing an offer to the player and that, in accordance with the CAS jurisprudence, the club was bound by this offer since it was signed by the President of the Board of Directors. 23. In addition, the Claimant underlined that the player indeed replied to that correspondence rejecting the offer, which means that he received it. Moreover, the Claimant submitted a copy of a Court Bailiff’s Report as evidence of the delivery of the correspondence to the player. 24. Furthermore, the Claimant denied that the player had terminated his training when he was 16 years old. In this respect, it referred to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and CAS and assessed that the player participated in U-19 and U-21 national teams which indicates that his training period was not complete and underscored that, in accordance with the jurisprudence, the number of matches cannot determine whether or not the training period is completed. 25. In light of the foregoing, the Claimant concluded that training compensation was due in accordance with the Regulations. 26. Lastly, on 4 February 2014, the Respondent reiterated in full its arguments and conclusions. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 August 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2012 (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 2014) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation concerning training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 16 August 2012, 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 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014), the 2010 edition of the said regulations (hereinafter: 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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 3 April 1990, was registered with the Claimant as from 22 September 2003 until 30 June 2012. 6. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 470,000, plus 5% p.a. as of the due date, since the player was transferred to a club belonging to a different association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 7. Equally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim for the payment of training compensation, stating that the offer made by the Claimant to the player was not in accordance with the Regulations and that, anyway player had completed his training at the age of 18 and that, therefore, no training compensation was due and, on the alternative, only EUR 95,000 would be due to the Claimant. 8. 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. ii. 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 transferred between clubs of two different Associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 G to a club in country I, 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. 12. 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. 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. 13. 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). 14. Moreover, the Claimant provided with a copy of the rejection remitted by the player. 15. In this context, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant, on 12 January 2013, remitted an offer of a better value than the current one to the player via registered mail, which was rejected by the player in writing on 14 January 2013. Thus, the DRC readily accepted that the player had indeed received and rejected the Claimant’s offer. 16. Consequently, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had, thus, provided with evidences 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 (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 17. As a result, the Chamber, and hereby underlining that the Claimant had offered the player, who was already a professional player when registered with the Claimant, a new contract, decided that the aforementioned considerations could lead to no other conclusion than that the Claimant had complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 18. Furthermore, and turning its attention to the Respondent’s allegations regarding the early termination of the training and education period of the player, 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. 19. In this respect, the Chamber took, once more, note of all the specific circumstances of the present matter as well as of all the evidence produced by the parties of the dispute. In continuation, the Chamber highlighted that, during the period of registration with the Claimant, the player played three friendly games with his U-19 national team and one with the U-21 national team. The Chamber outlined that this may indeed be an indication of the player’s talent, skills and level of training, however, such fact is in itself not conclusive in establishing that a particular player indeed already completed his training period. 20. Finally, the Chamber outlined that even if a club is playing in top international competitions, such as Europa League and the Champions League, this does not necessarily mean that, every young player joining such club, is no longer in need of training. 21. In view of the above, the Chamber concurred that, in the specific matter at hand and taking all the above-mentioned elements combined, 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. 22. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 23. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to the FIFA circular no. 1299 dated 27 April 2012 which provides details for the calculation of training compensation as well as 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 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. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 6 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. In continuation, the Chamber observed that according to the documentation on file as well as the relevant circular, the Claimant belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year), whereas 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 22 September 2003 until 30 June 2012. 25. Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 467,500. 26. 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 16 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. 27. Furthermore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber further decided that the Claimant’s claim for legal expenses is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Chamber. 28. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction with 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 CHF 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 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 470,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 30. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 31. Considering that the case at hand involved various particular factual difficulties and involved a certain specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 25,000. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club X, has to pay to the Claimant, Club P, within 30 days as of the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 467,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 September 2012. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interests 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 P, is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club X, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club X, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 5.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Club P. 6. The Claimant, Club P, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club X, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2 and 5.2 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