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 28 August 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Jon Newman (USA), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the Player E

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 28 August 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Jon Newman (USA), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passports issued by the Football Association of country B and the Football Association of country F, the Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 15 February 1990, was registered with the following clubs: - Club O (country F) as from 25 September 2000 until 31 August 2007 as an amateur; - Club A (country B) as from 5 September 2007 until 5 February 2009 as an amateur; - Club A as from 6 February 2009 until 8 January 2012 as a scholar; - Club A as from 9 January 2012 until 26 January 2012 as an amateur. 2. The football seasons in country B during the period of time the player was registered with Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 4. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 31 January 2012. 5. Equally, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e. the 2011/2012 season. 6. On 4 January 2014, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, in January 2012, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. 7. The Claimant explained that, on 21 June 2013, it had contacted the Respondent requesting the payment of training compensation. Subsequently, on 16 July 2013, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s request asking for the relevant invoice to pay the amount of EUR 263,700.88. After having sent the invoice to the Respondent, the Claimant was informed by the Respondent that it refused to pay training compensation stating that the Claimant had issued a “releasing paper” by means of which it waived its right to training compensation. 8. In this respect, the Claimant argued that, upon request of the player’s agent to renounce the right to training compensation “to some other club in country B”, it had issued the aforementioned “releasing paper”. The Claimant stated that a “releasing paper” is necessary to register a player with the Football Association of country B, according to the Regulations on registration, status and transfer of players from the Football Association of country B. However, according to the Claimant, said paper is only valid in the territory of the Football Association of country B and is not valid for international transfers of players. The Claimant further explained that the Football Association of country B issued a “deletion certificate”, by means of which the player was deleted from the Football Association of country B register, which indicates that “This certificate is valid for the area of Football Association of country B only”. 9. Finally, the Claimant referred to the scholarship agreement concluded with the player and, in case the DRC qualifies said agreement as a professional contract, to art. 3 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and stated that the player was re-registered as a professional with the Respondent within 30 months of being reinstated as an amateur. 10. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 263,700.88 plus 5% interest as of 3 March 2012. 11. On 31 March 2014, the Respondent replied to the claim and stated that the letter dated 16 July 2013 was signed by Mr X only. However, Mr X only has power to represent the Respondent by collective signature. The Respondent explained that the Claimant’s waiver was orally granted by the former president of the club, Mr Y, to the player’s agent, Mr Z. Upon request of the latter, after the employment contract between the player and the Respondent was concluded on 23 January 2012, the Claimant issued a written confirmation of the waiver (i.e. the “releasing paper”) on 26 January 2012. The Respondent highlighted that the “releasing paper” contained a remark that “the player may register for any club of his choice without any interference by Club A”, as opposed to the “deletion certificate” which clearly stipulated its validity within the area of the Football Association of country B only. 12. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the transfer was duly entered into the TMS and that it uploaded the “releasing paper” (in the language of country B), which was subsequently confirmed by the Football Association of country B in accordance with art. 8.2 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 13. Finally, in the event the DRC decides that training compensation is due, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s calculation is incorrect. No training compensation is due for the season of the player’s 22nd birthday (i.e. the 2011/2012 season) and, therefore, the training compensation should amount to EUR 229,180.33. 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 4 January 2014. 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 of the 2012 and 2014 editions of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014), 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, 2012 and 2014), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 January 2012, 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, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC 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. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that the Claimant had issued a “releasing paper” on 26 January 2012 and that the Football Association of country B had issued a “deletion certificate” on 27 January 2012. 6. Furthermore, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 263,700.88. 7. Equally, the DRC noted that the Claimant argued that the aforementioned “releasing paper” is only valid within the territory of the Football Association of country B and is not valid for international transfers of players. 8. In continuation, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s submission that the “releasing paper” contained a remark that “the player may register for any club of his choice without any interference by Club A”, as opposed to the “deletion certificate” which clearly stipulated its validity within the area of the Football Association of country B only. 9. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration the aforementioned arguments, the Chamber observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether the “releasing paper” issued by the Claimant on 26 January 2012 was valid without any territorial restrictions or within the territory of the Football Association of country B only. 10. In this respect, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the “releasing paper” was uploaded in TMS by the Respondent and, subsequently, confirmed by the Football Association of country B. In this regard, the members of the Chamber emphasized the importance of TMS and that it is standard practice of the DRC to strictly apply documents which are uploaded in TMS. 11. In view of the foregoing, the DRC turned its attention to the “releasing paper”, the original of which, in the language of country B, was submitted by the Claimant along with a translation in English. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that the “releasing paper” stipulated, inter alia, that “the player may register for any club of his choice without any interference by Club A” and “Data on compensation of costs invested in the development of the player: a) Club requests compensation … NO”. 12. Equally, the DRC turned its attention to the “deletion certificate” issued by the Football Association of country B in the language of country B and submitted by the Claimant along with a translation in English. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that the “deletion certificate” stipulated, inter alia, that “this certificate is valid for the area of Football Association of country B only”. 13. In view of the above, taking into account the clear wording of the “releasing paper” and the absence of any territorial restriction in said document, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had waived its potential entitlement to training compensation by issuing the “releasing paper” on 26 January 2012. 14. In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 15. 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 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 that, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 16. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 263,700.88 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 Annexe A). 17. As a result, considering that the case at hand did not pose any particular factual difficulties as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the DRC determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 18,000 which shall be borne by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 18,000 are to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the amount of CHF 13,000 is to be paid 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 ***** 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