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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2014, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2014, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. The player from country B, Player E (hereinafter: the player) was born on 29 September 1989. 2. The Football Federation from country B confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: Claimant or Club A) from 15 April 2005 until 23 October 2009 as an amateur. 3. The sporting season in country Bran as follows: a. 2004-2005: from 13 March 2005 until 10 December 2005; b. 2005-2006: from 28 January 2006 until 11 November 2006; c. 2006-2007: from 17 February 2007 until 24 October 2007; d. 2007-2008: from 09 December 2007 until 3 August 2008; e. 2008-2009: from 29 October 2008 until 26 July 2009; f. 2009-2010: from 24 October 2009 until 28 July 2010. 4. According to the Football Federation from country D, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent or Club C) as a professional on 16 January 2010. 5. On 6 October 2011, Club A contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from Club C on the grounds that the player, in January 2010, signed his first professional contract. 6. In this respect, Club A claims EUR 150,000 as training compensation plus “5% interest to be counted from 15 February 2010”. 7. In its response to the claim, Club C rejects its liability to pay “solidarity contribution”. In this respect, Club C claims that the amount claimed is disproportional to the amount of salary paid to the player and moreover, it is up to the new club to calculate the amount of “solidarity contribution”. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 October 2011. Consequently, 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 (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii, in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2014 edition), the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2014 edition), and considering that the claim was lodged on 6 October 2011 as well as that the player was registered with the Respondent on 16 January 2010, the 2009 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the aforementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First, the DRC judge recalled that the player, born on 29 September 1989, was registered with the Claimant as from 15 April 2005 until 23 October 2009 as an amateur as well as that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 16 January 2010. 6. Moreover, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 150,000, on the basis that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent and apparently on a club category III basis. 7. In this context, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejects liability to pay training compensation, indicating that the amount claimed was clearly disproportional in the case at hand. In addition, the DRC judge noted that whereas the Respondent referred to ‘solidarity contribution’ in its reply, the Respondent made a clear reference to the case at hand. 8. The DRC judge then turned his attention to the Respondent’s argument that the amount claimed by the Claimant, i.e. EUR 150,000, was disproportionate to the amount of salary paid to the player. 9. In this respect, the DRC judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which inter alia stipulate that “(…) the first time a player registers as a professional, the training compensation payable is calculated by taking the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of training (…)”. The argument of the Respondent, which focuses exclusively on the disproportionality between the amount claimed and the salary paid to the player, was deemed irrelevant by the DRC judge as the calculation of training compensation is based on the training costs of the new club, that is, on the costs that would have been incurred by the Respondent if it had trained the player itself, and was therefore rejected. 10. In continuation, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the DRC judge stated 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 player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 11. Following the above, the DRC judge pointed out that the Football Federation from country D had confirmed that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 16 January 2010. Equally, the DRC judge stressed that, taking into account the player’s career history provided by the Football Federation from country B, the player had at all times been registered as an amateur prior to his registration as a professional with the Respondent. 12. On account of the above considerations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 13. Turning his attention to the calculation of the training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant, the DRC judge referred to the FIFA circular no. 1185 dated 22 April 2009 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 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. 14. With this having been established, the DRC judge noted that according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System, the Respondent was a category III club at the time of registration of the player. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that category III shall apply to the Respondent which, moreover, appears to be the club category on which the Claimant has based its claim. 15. In continuation, the DRC judge took into account that the player, born on 29 January 1989, was registered with the Claimant as from 15 April 2005 until 23 October 2009. 16. Consequently, taking into account the aforementioned considerations as well as the changes in the starting and ending dates of the relevant sporting seasons in country B (cf. point I.3 above), the DRC judge partially accepted the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 120,000. 17. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with the DRC’s longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day following the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 16 February 2010, until the date of effective payment. 18. Lastly, the DRC judge 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 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 Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 19. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 150,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 20. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted as well as the complexity of the case, the DRC judge determined that the costs of the current proceedings are CHF 14,000. Given that the Claimant had already paid the amount of CHF 4,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant does not have to pay an additional amount as costs of the proceedings. The DRC judge deemed that the remaining costs of the current proceedings amounting to CHF 10,000 shall be borne by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A Stars, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 120,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 February 2010 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that 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 is rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings, amounting to CHF 14,000, is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. CHF 10,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to the case no.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 5.2. CHF 4,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 4,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant does not have to pay an additional amount as costs of the proceedings. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives