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 Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Todd Durbin (USA), 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 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 Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Todd Durbin (USA), 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 Player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country B (hereinafter: Football Association of country B), the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 9 March 1993, was temporarily registered as a professional with its affiliated club, Club A, as from 17 July 2013 until 1 December 2013 and from 20 February 2014 until 31 May 2014. 2. The football season in country B during the period of time the player was registered with Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), lasted from 13 July until 31 May of the following year. 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it. 4. According to the information provided by the Football Association of country D (hereinafter: Football Association of country D), the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 28 August 2014 as a professional. 5. The Football Association of country D confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during the time when the player was registered with it. 6. On 12 February 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 28 August 2014, was transferred as a professional from the club from country G, Club F, to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 21,250 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 September 2014 and procedural costs. 7. In support of its claim, the Claimant argued that pursuant to well established jurisprudence of the DRC and CAS and their interpretation of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Respondent is obliged to pay training compensation not only to the former club, but also to clubs that have registered the player on loan. 8. In its reply, the Respondent argued that the player signed his first professional contract with Club F. As a consequence, the transfer from Club F to the Respondent was a subsequent transfer and therefore training compensation is only due to the former club, which in this case is Club F, and no training compensation is due to the Claimant. 9. Finally, the Respondent stated that, according to the transfer contract signed with Club F, the club from country G waived its right to training compensation, and no further training compensation is payable to any other club. 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 12 February 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, 2014 and 2015 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 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present matter relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 17 April 2015 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the Member H and the Member I refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the Member H has the same nationality as the Respondent and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives, also the Member I refrained from participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations. 4. 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 2014 and 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 28 August 2014, the 2014 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. . 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 above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the 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. In this regard, the DRC recalled that the player, born on 9 March 1993, was registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 17 July 2013 and 1 December 2013 and for the period between 20 February 2014 and 31 May 2014. Equally, the DRC observed that after the loan with the Claimant had expired, the player returned to his club of origin, Club F, i.e. the club with which the player was still contractually bound. Thereafter, on 28 August 2014, the player was internationally transferred from Club F to the Respondent on a definitive basis. 7. In continuation, the members of the DRC took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 21,250 indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from Club F to the Respondent before the end of te season of his 23rd birthday. 8. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the Claimant is not the player’s former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Also, the Respondent stated that it signed a transfer agreement with Club F, in which the latter waived its right for training compensation and, thus, the Respondent was not anymore liable to pay training compensation to any other club. 9. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that the main issue in the present matter is whether or not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled to receive training compensation when, after the expiry of the loan, the professional returns to his club of origin, and, thereafter, is transferred from the club of origin to a club belonging to another association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 10. In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the DRC, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, started by stating 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. 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 well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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. As to the argument of the Respondent that the Claimant is not the former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the Chamber pointed out that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with Club F and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players. 17. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent’s interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would clearly contravene the intention of the legislator of the Regulations according to which all training clubs shall, in principle, be rewarded for their efforts invested in training young players, including those clubs that have accepted a player on a temporary basis. 18. As to the argument of the Respondent that Club F signed a transfer agreement wherein it waived its right for training compensation, the Chamber wished to recall that a transfer agreement is signed by the new club and the former club in order to establish the conditions for the transfer of the player. In principle, the former club can waive its right for training compensation if the two clubs expressly agree upon it. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent and Club F concluded a transfer agreement in which Club F waived its right for training compensation. However, as the Claimant was not a party to this transfer agreement, the consequences out of this contract do not affect the Claimant and therefore, the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players have to be applied. 19. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s arguments and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 20. 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 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. 21. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that both the Claimant and the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year), as well as that the player was born on 9 March 1993 and was registered with the Claimant as from 17 July 2013 until 1 December 2013 and from 20 February 2014 until 31 May 2014. 22. Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Association of country D confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 28 August 2014. 23. Furthermore, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of 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 7 months of the 2013/2014 season. 24. Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the DRC decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 17,500 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 25. 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 28 September 2014, until the date of effective payment. 26. Lastly, the DRC 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 and the solidarity mechanism, 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. 27. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 21,250 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 28. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well as the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, of which CHF 1,000 shall be borne by the Claimant and CHF 3,000 by the Respondent. 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 EUR 17,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 28 September 2014 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 costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. 5.2. The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent. 5.3. The abovementioned amounts have to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 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. 63 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