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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the club, Club K, from country U as Claimant against the club, Club, from country M as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with player T

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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the club, Club K, from country U as Claimant against the club, Club, from country M as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with player T I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Federation of country U confirmed that the player T (hereinafter: the player), born in July 1990, was registered with its affiliated club K (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 20 July 2008 until 7 August 2011 as well as from 1 January 2012 until 10 July 2013, each time as a professional. 2. The football season in country U lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. According to the information provided by the country M Football Association, the player was registered with its affiliated club B (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 10 July 2013 as a professional. 4. The country M Football Association confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with the club. 5. On 26 November 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting the training compensation for the transfer of the player to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is requesting the payment of the amount of EUR 105,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of the due date of the respective payment. 6. In support of its claim, the Claimant argued that despite its numerous efforts to find an amicable settlement in this matter, the Respondent failed to comply with its obligations pertaining to the payment of training compensation. 7. In its reply, the Respondent argued that the player had already completed his training period prior to his 21st birthday which is why the Claimant lost its entitlement to training compensation. In this regard, the Respondent argued that following the player’s registration with the Claimant, the player was not treated as a youth or junior player as he was immediately treated as a professional. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the amount of training compensation requested by the Claimant does not reflect the actual training costs as they are usually incurred in Malta. In this regard, the Respondent pointed to art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) where it is stated that “it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club had it trained the player itself” when calculating the payable amount of training compensation. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Respondent stressed that “by international standards it is a miniscule club whose administration (…) completely made up of untrained volunteers.” 9. In this context, the Respondent explained that transfer fees for clubs forming part of the country M Football Association are capped at fifty thousand euros whilst player wages are capped at one thousand two hundred euros monthly in accordance with the country M Football Association’s “Parameters for the Liquidation of the Compensation Available in the Transfer of Players, Section B Article (IV)(c)” as well as the “country M Football Association’s Regulations for the Control of Remuneration for Non Amateur Players, Part B, Article 6(1)”. Consequently, the Respondent stressed that it could never “even envision spending the requested amount on training when no team in country M is even authorized legally to spend so much on player’s wages as well as transfer fees. These limits are indeed another indication of the financial level of the Association to which [the Respondent] belongs as well as the financial calibre of [the Respondent].” 10. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed to its annual revenue created in the year 2013 and stressed that the amount claimed by the Claimant almost equals the amount of surplus generated by it throughout the period ending December 2013. In this regard, the Respondent provided copies of the financial audit reports for the year of 2013. Therefore, should the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC) decide to award the training compensation requested by the Claimant to the latter club, this would lead “to such compensation not being compensatory at all but in fact punitive upon [the Respondent], a situation clearly not contemplated by the Training Compensation system.” Therefore, the Respondent stated that the DRC should at least reduce the amount payable to the Claimant as it is stipulated in art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 11. Moreover, the Respondent argued that the calculation provided by the Claimant was incorrect and the amount claimed by the latter club hence incorrect. In this regard, the Respondent stressed that the player was registered with the Claimant during three seasons only which is why the amount payable would be EUR 90,000 only. 12. In its replica, the Claimant argued that the Respondent did not provide sufficient proof that the training of the player had in fact ended before he was registered with the Claimant. In this regard, the Claimant further pointed to the fact that the player mostly participated in games of its reserve team and merely participated in official games of the club’s first team and provided a copy of the relevant stat sheets for the seasons the player was registered with the Claimant. In view of the aforementioned, the Claimant concluded that these circumstances rather show that the player’s training had not ended during the time the player was registered with the Claimant. 13. As to the amount claimed by it, the Claimant stated that it established its calculations were based on the amounts provided for in the FIFA Regulations by multiplying the number of years during which the player was trained by the club (2008/09, 2009/10, 2010/11 and half of the season of 2011/12) with the relevant indicative amount of a category III club (EUR 30,000 per season), in accordance with the category of the Respondent. In this regard, the Claimant further argued that the Respondent was participating in qualification matches for the UEFA Europa League and the UEFA Champions League during the last five years and hence concluded that an indicative amount of EUR 30,000 is appropriate. 14. In its final position, the Respondent again objected to the calculation of the Claimant and, in this regard, emphasized that the player was loaned to the Club O, from country U during the season of 2011/2012, which is why any amount payable by the Respondent had to be reduced accordingly, as the player was not trained by the Claimant during said period. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 November 2013, thus after 1 December 2012. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 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, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 10 July 2013, the Chamber analysed which 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 2012 and 2014), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 10 July 2013, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: 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 Chamber emphasized 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 Chamber recalled that the player was born in July 1990 and was registered with the Claimant as from 20 July 2008 until 7 August 2011 as well as from 1 January 2012 until 10 July 2013, each time as a professional. 6. 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 105,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 7. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the claim should be rejected since the player had allegedly terminated his training period prior to his transfer from the Claimant to the Respondent, i.e. prior to the player’s 21st birthday. Finally, the Respondent refuted the claim by stating that the amount claimed by the Claimant was disproportionate to the case at hand. 8. In this context, the DRC highlighted that the following issues needed to be analysed in the present matter: 1) Was the player’s training already completed at the time the player joined the Respondent? 2) Was the amount claimed by the Claimant in fact disproportionate? 9. When addressing the first issue, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to cases regarding training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 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 or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 10. Following the above, the Chamber noted that the country M Football Association had confirmed that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 10 July 2013, this is, in the season of his 23rd birthday. Equally, the Chamber stressed that, according to the player passport issued by the country U Football Federation, the player was registered with the Claimant as from 20 July 2008 until 7 August 2011 as well as from 1 January 2012 until 10 July 2013, each time as a professional. 11. On account of the above considerations, the DRC decided that the Respondent would, in principle, be liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant, which is the player’s former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 12. In continuation, the Chamber first referred to art. 1 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that training compensation shall be payable, as a general rule, up to the age of 23 for training incurred up to the age of 21, unless it is evident that a player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21. In this respect, the DRC emphasised that cases involving a possible early completion of a player’s training period have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all the specific circumstances and all the evidence produced. Thus, several factors and indications have to be considered in order to establish whether a particular player’s training has indeed been completed before the age of 21, as the Respondent stated. For the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber stressed that both the DRC and the CAS have adopted a strict approach in establishing the early completion of the player’s training before the age of 21, so as to not jeopardize the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation. 13. In this regard, the Chamber noted, once more, all the specific circumstances of the present matter as well as all the evidence produced by the parties, in particular the stat sheets of the relevant seasons when the player was registered with the Claimant. Based on the foregoing, the DRC highlighted that, during the period of registration with the Claimant, the player mostly participated in games of the Claimant’s reserve team, merely participating in official games of the club’s first team. Hence, contrary to the opinion of the Respondent, the Chamber considered that it could not be established that the player “was not treated as a youth or junior player as he was immediately treated as a professional” while the player was registered with the Claimant. 14. In light of the above, the Chamber concurred that, taking into account all the above-mentioned elements and circumstances, it could not be established that it was evident that the player had indeed completed his training period before his 21st birthday. Consistently with all the above, the Chamber concluded that training compensation is due. 15. Turning its attention to the second issue raised by the Respondent as to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC referred to the FIFA circular no. 1223 dated 29 April 2010 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. 16. In continuation, the Chamber observed that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the category III and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 20 July 2008 until 7 August 2011 as well as from 1 January 2012 until 10 July 2013, each time as a professional. 17. Consequently, taking into account the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber pointed out that, in principle, the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 105,000, as requested by the Claimant. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent challenged this amount indicating that it was clearly disproportional in the case at hand. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber deemed it necessary to examine the alleged disproportionality of the amount payable as training compensation taking into account the arguments and documentation presented by the Respondent in this regard. 18. In this context, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the Respondent’s argument that the amount claimed by the Claimant, i.e. the amount of EUR 105,000, was disproportionate, asserting that the amount payable as training compensation needs to be in accordance with the real training costs. In this regard, the DRC recalled that the Respondent argued that “by international standards it is a miniscule club whose administration (…) completely made up of untrained volunteers” and that it could never “even envision spending the requested amount on training when no team in country M is even authorized legally to spend so much on player’s wages as well as transfer fees” in accordance with the “country M Football Association’s Regulations for the Control of Remuneration for Non Amateur Players, Part B, Article 6(1)”, i.e. that the real training costs in relation to the financial situation and circumstances of the club did not correspond with the amount claimed by the Claimant. 19. In this context, after a thorough analysis of both the arguments from the Respondent as well as of the documents provided by the Respondent, in particular the “country M Football Association’s Regulations for the Control of Remuneration for Non Amateur Players, Part B, Article 6(1)” and the financial audit reports, the DRC referred to art. 5 par. 1 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(s), it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself”. In this regard, the DRC decided that the arguments of the Respondent, which focus mostly on its financial situations and the regulatory circumstances in country M, are therefore irrelevant as the calculation is based on the costs that would have been incurred by the Respondent as if it had trained the player itself. In this regard, taking into consideration that the country M Football Association had allocated the Respondent in the club category III and the Respondent had never contested its allocation to this club category, the Chamber had no reason to believe that the amount payable was disproportionate. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber remarked that the Respondent had not sufficiently substantiated its request in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 20. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber found the amount of EUR 105,000 is not disproportionate, accepted the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 105,000. 21. 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, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 10 August 2013, until the date of effective payment. 22. 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 Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 23. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 105,000 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 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 24. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the number of issues that had to be addressed, the complexity of the case as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been accepted, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 8,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club K, is accepted. 2. 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 105,000, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 10 August 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned amount plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision as follows: a. The amount of currency of country H 3,000 to the Claimant. b. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives