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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, 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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, 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 passport issued by the Football Federation from country B the Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 13 July 1990, was registered with the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 29 January 2010 until 24 August 2010 as an amateur and, after the conclusion of a loan agreement between the Claimant and the club from country G, Club F (hereinafter: Club F), as from 25 August 2010 until 14 July 2011 as a professional. 2. On 19 August 2010, the player and the Claimant signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2011. 3. On 20 August 2010, Club F and the Claimant signed the aforementioned agreement for the loan of the player from Club F to the Claimant until 30 June 2011. The loan agreement stipulated inter alia that the loan was free of payment and that the relevant International Transfer Certificate (ITC) would be returned to Club F upon expiry of the loan. The employment contract between the player and Club F was set to expire on 30 June 2015. 4. According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it. 5. The football seasons in country B during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 6. The Football Federation from country D confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 22 July 2011 as a professional. 7. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) at the time the player was registered with it. 8. On 18 July 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, in July 2011, was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. The Claimant explained that it had transferred the player on loan from Club F on 20 August 2010, for the duration of one sporting season, until 30 June 2011. However, according to the Claimant, “the player in the end of May 2011 disappeared for some period of time without informing anybody of his whereabouts”. Subsequently, according to the Claimant, the player signed an employment contract with the Respondent in July 2011. In particular, the Claimant is claiming training compensation for the full 2010/2011 season in the amount of EUR 90,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 August 2011. 9. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent explained that the player had indicated that he had signed a pre-contract with Club F on 1 August 2010, but that said contract had never been registered and, consequently, he had signed an employment contract with the Claimant for one sportive season on 19 August 2010. Furthermore, the player had confirmed that, upon expiry of his employment contract with the Claimant, he was a free agent and that the Claimant had never offered him a new employment contract. 10. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that it had concluded an employment contract with the player on 7 July 2011 and that the Claimant had only lodged its claim in front of FIFA on 18 July 2013. Thus, with reference to art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s claim is prescribed. Moreover, the Respondent referred to art. 10 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and stated that a loan agreement is only valid when it is signed by the clubs involved as well as the player. According to the Respondent, the player did not sign the loan agreement between Club F and the Claimant. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a letter from the FIFA administration, sent to the player on 6 July 2012 in the course of the investigation in a labour proceeding opposing the player and Club F, by means of which the player was informed that the relevant loan agreement concluded between Club F and the Claimant could not be forwarded to him due to confidentiality reasons. Consequently, the Respondent considers the loan agreement null and void. 11. In continuation, the Respondent referred to “art. 8.4” of Annexe 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and stated that the player was in fact never registered for Club F, since the Football Federation from country G had never requested the ITC for the player in order to be registered with Club F. This is confirmed by the fact that the ITC was delivered by the Football Federation from country B to the Football Federation from country D, upon the player’s registration with the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent referred to the player passports of the Football Federation from country B and the Football Federation from country D, according to which the player was never registered with Club F. The Respondent then referred to “art. 6 of Annexe 3” of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and stated that the Claimant had failed to offer the player a new employment contract and, therefore, it is not entitled to training compensation. Finally, the Respondent stated that, in the event the DRC decides that the Claimant is entitled to training compensation, the correct amount should be EUR 30,000 in light of art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 12. In its unsolicited replica dated 9 May 2014, the Claimant stated that art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is not applicable to the present case. Furthermore, the Claimant reiterated its statements with regard to the loan transfer of the player from Club F and submitted a letter, addressed to and signed by the player and dated 19 August 2010, by means of which the player was informed of the loan agreement reached between Club F and the Claimant. Moreover, with reference to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant argued that the player’s signature is not mandatory in order for the loan agreement to be binding. Finally, the Claimant stated that the Respondent was playing in the first division of country D and, therefore, shall be considered a category I club. In this respect, the Claimant reiterated its claim and amended its claim for interest to apply as of 14 July 2011. 13. In light of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant stated that it was not in a position to offer the player a contract since he was playing for the club on loan. However, the Claimant stated that it had inquired with Club F on 11 February 2011 if the loan agreement could be extended, to which the club from country G responded negatively. According to the Claimant, it had shown a genuine interest in retaining the services of the player. 14. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its argument regarding the prescription of the case, while referring to art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. With regard to “art. 6 of Annexe 3”, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s proposal to extend the loan period should have been addressed to the player, not to Club F. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the letter dated 19 August 2010 refers to a transfer of the player, not to a loan. In this respect, the Respondent referred again to the labour dispute between the player and Club F, and argued that a valid employment contract was never concluded between the two parties. Moreover, the Respondent stated that Club F and the Claimant have the same owner, which leads to illegal arrangements between the two clubs. 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 18 July 2013. 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 in July 2011, 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 reverted to the argument of the Respondent, according to whom the present matter is barred by the statute of limitations with reference to art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In this regard, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, according to which, inter alia, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the said Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. The present claim having been lodged in front of the DRC on 18 July 2013 and the event giving rise to the dispute, that is, the player’s registration with the Respondent having occurred, according to a correspondence from the Football Federation from country D, either on 14 July 2011 when it received the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the player, or on 22 July 2011 when the professional football league of country D approved the employment contract signed between the player and the Respondent, the members of the Chamber had to reject the respective argument of the Respondent and confirmed that the present petition was lodged in front of the DRC within said two years’ period of time. The matter is, thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. For the sake of good order, the DRC stressed that even if it would consider the date of 7 July 2011 to be the correct date, the claim would not be time-barred since art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulates that the deadline to pay training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association. Hence, the event giving rise to the dispute would be the non-payment of training compensation 30 days after 7 July 2011. 5. Having established the aforementioned, 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. 6. First of all, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 90,000, 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. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent argued that the Claimant had failed to offer the player a new employment contract and, therefore, it is not entitled to training compensation. 8. In continuation, the DRC took note of the Claimant’s submission that it was not in a position to offer the player a contract since he was playing for the club on loan. 9. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the Chamber observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether the Claimant should have offered the player a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 10. First of all, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Chamber 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 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. 11. Furthermore, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said provision stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism. 12. Following the above, the Chamber stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them. 13. In other words, the Chamber emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club. 14. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the Chamber deemed it essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which players were loaned to other clubs and thus are not being definitively transferred to a new club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin do not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Chamber was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially depriving the loan of its essential flexibility and function of providing young players the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club. 15. Following the above, the Chamber pointed out that the obligation to pay training compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 16. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concurred that the Claimant is, in principle, entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 17. In continuation, the DRC referred 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). In this regard, the Chamber indicated that, since the player moved from country B to country D, i.e. from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the DRC concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 18. At this point, the members of the Chamber wished to recall that, in case of a loan transfer, the player is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended). Equally, the Chamber recalled that, in casu, the player was transferred on loan from Club F to the Claimant until 30 June 2011 and still had a valid employment contract with Club F until 30 June 2015. 19. In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber held that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, i.e. the obligation to offer a professional contract to the player, does not apply to clubs with which the player is registered on loan, since said clubs are per se not in a position to do so considering that the player is still contractually bound to the club of origin. 20. In view of all the above, taking into consideration all the surrounding circumstances of this specific matter, the DRC concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 21. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Claimant’s submission that “the player in the end of May 2011 disappeared for some period of time without informing anybody of his whereabouts”. As a result, and considering art. 3 par. 1 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club, the Chamber concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 9 months of the 2010/2011 season, i.e. from September 2010 until May 2011. 22. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred 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, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. 23. Having established the above, the DRC referred to art. 6 par. 1 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. In this respect, the Chamber stressed that the Football Federation from country D had allocated the Respondent as a category III club and that the Claimant was a category II club. 24. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 13 July 1990 and was registered with the Claimant on loan from Club F as from 25 August 2010 until “the end of May 2011”. 25. Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Federation from country D confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 22 July 2011. 26. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 22,500 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 27. 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 on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 22 August 2011, until the date of effective payment 28. 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. 29. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 90,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 30. As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well as the degree of success, the DRC determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000, of which CHF 8,000 shall be borne by the Respondent and CHF 2,000 by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. 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 22,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 22 August 2011 until the date of effective payment. 4. 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. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 6.1. The amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid by the Respondent 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 6.2. The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 6.3. The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 3,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, no additional amount has to be paid by the Claimant. 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 3. and 6.2. above 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 Acting Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives