F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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 (2015-2016) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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 18 July 1993, was registered as an amateur for its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) as follows: - as from 5 March until 19 December 2007; - as from 1 March until 21 December 2008; - as from 1 March until 20 December 2009; - as from 1 March until 19 December 2010; - as from 1 March until 30 August 2011. 2. Furthermore, the above-mentioned player passport as well indicates that on 2 September 2011, the player was registered as an amateur with the club from country F, Club G. Moreover, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was transferred from the club from country F, Club G, to the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 4 February 2013. 3. The sporting season in country B follows the calendar year. 4. According to the information contained in TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 4 February 2013 as a professional. 5. Moreover, according to TMS, the Respondent belonged to category II (indicative amount of USD 40,000 per season) during the season when the player was registered with it. 6. On 19 April 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, which was completed on 11 November 2014, claiming the payment of training compensation for an amount of USD 124,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date, in connection with the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent. 7. Despite having been invited by FIFA to provide its comments to the present matter, the Respondent did not answer to the claim lodged by the Claimant. 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 19 April 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 par. 2 and 3 of the 2012 edition 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 4 February 2013, the 2012 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 took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of USD 124,000, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 6. Furthermore, the DRC duly noted that the Respondent never took position in the present matter, although having been invited to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the DRC deemed that, in this way, the Respondent renounced its right of defence and accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 7. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file. 8. Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and 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. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. Based on the documentation provided by the Football Federation from country B and in absence of any documentation to the contrary, the Chamber concluded that it could indeed be established that the player had been registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. 9. In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that the Respondent had not replied to the claim of the Claimant and therefore ruled that the Respondent did not provide any argument which would justify the nonpayment of training compensation to the Claimant. 10. Subsequently, the DRC considered that it had to determine which should be the relevant amount of training compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. In this regard, the DRC went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant training compensation due to the Claimant. 11. To that end, 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. Equally, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which, inter alia, stipulates that the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs. 12. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 18 July 1993 and was registered with the Claimant as from 5 March until 19 December 2007; as from 1 March until 21 December 2008; as from 1 March until 20 December 2009; as from 1 March until 19 December 2010 and as from 1 March until 30 August 2011. In other words, the player was registered with the Claimant during ten months of the season of his 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th birthday and during six months of the season of his 18th birthday. 13. On account of the above, the DRC considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the above-mentioned relevant periods. 14. Equally, the DRC recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 4 February 2013. 15. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber recalled that, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of USD 40,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it. 16. In light of the foregoing, and taking into account the aforementioned registration dates, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent training compensation in the amount of USD 89,998 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 7 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 17. 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. 18. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is USD 124,000 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). 19. As a result, considering the degree of success as well as that the Respondent never replied to the claim, the DRC determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000 which shall be borne partially by the Respondent and partially by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, 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 USD 89,998 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 7 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent 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. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 12,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to 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 The amount of CHF 3,000 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, 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. above 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General