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 12 May 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, 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.

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 12 May 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, 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. The Football Federation of country B confirmed that the player, Player E, born on 24 October 1991, was registered as an amateur with its affiliated clubs as follows: - Club F: from 27 November 2002 until 31 August 2009; - Club G: from 2 September 2009 until 27 January 2010; - Club H: from 23 February 2011 until 3 February 2012; - Club I: from 8 February 2012 until 1 August 2012; and - Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant): from 8 August 2012 until 23 July 2013. 2. Furthermore, the Football Federation of country J confirmed that the player was registered as an amateur with the club from country J, Club K, from 22 May 2010 until 30 December 2010. 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional on 12 August 2013. 4. According to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category 2 (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the player was registered with said club. 5. On 12 March 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim at FIFA claiming training compensation in connection with the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 60,000 without claiming interest. 6. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant stating that the manager involved in the transfer of the player assured that the player was “free to sign” and that it would not have to pay any “tuition nor transfer fees”. In this respect, the Respondent further held that a player from the third division has “zero market price” in the league of country D. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter: 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 12 March 2014. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012, 2014 and 2015) he 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 his new club on 12 August 2013, the DRC judge analysed which regulations 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, 2014 and 2015), the 2012 version of the said Regulations is applicable to the present matter 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 facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the DRC judge emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge took note of the fact that the player, born on 24 October 1991, was registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2012 until 23 July 2013. 6. Furthermore, the DRC judge duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is requesting training compensation for the training and education of the player concerned from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 60,000, on the basis that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. 7. Moreover, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the manager involved in the transfer of the player assured that the player was “free to sign” and that it would not have to pay any “tuition nor transfer fees”. In this respect, the DRC judge further noted that the Respondent further held that a player from the third division has “zero market price” in the league of country D. 8. In this context, the DRC firstly underscored that it is undisputed that, on 12 August 2013, the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. 9. In continuation, the DRC judge stated that, as established 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 the player concerned is registered for the first time as a professional, or when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different Associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 10. Furthermore, the DRC judge also referred to art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, in accordance with which, as a general principle, the club for which the player was registered for the first time as a professional is responsible for paying training compensation to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training, the aforementioned in accordance with the player’s career history as provided in the player passport. 11. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 60,000 since it trained the player as from 8 August 2012 until 23 July 2013, whereas the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and asserted that the manager involved assured that the player was “free to sign” and that no “tuition nor transfer fees” would be payable. 12. In this regard, the DRC judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which essentially stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof and, in this respect, he concluded that the Respondent shall proof that the Claimant had waived its right to claim training compensation. However, the DRC judge underscored that the Respondent, at no point, provided any proof for its aforementioned assumption that it could register the player without the obligation to pay training compensation to any third club. 13. Moreover, the DRC judge stressed that, in any case, the Respondent could not rely on such statement by the player’s manager, given that a waiver regarding training compensation could only possibly be made by the club which is entitled to training compensation. However, the DRC judge emphasized that the Respondent has not provided any proof in this regard. As to the Respondent’s argument that the player had “zero market price”, the DRC judge held that this argument has no influence on the Respondent’s obligation to pay training compensation. 14. In light of the foregoing, the DRC judge concluded that based on the documents at disposal it can be established that the player in question, born on 24 October 1991, was registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2012 until 23 July 2013 as an amateur and thereafter signed his first professional contract with the Respondent on 12 August 2013, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and thus, entitling the Claimant to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 15. As a result, 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 DRC judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered at the matter at stake corresponds to eleven months of the season of the player’s 21st birthday, season 2012/2013 from August to June. 16. Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club as if it had trained the player itself and thus it is calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club. 17. In continuation, the DRC judge observed that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the category II and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2012 until 23 July 2013. 18. In view of all of the above, the DRC judge decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 55,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 19. 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 judge 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. 20. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 60,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 21. As a result, considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure as well as considering the degree of success, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the DRC judge 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 of the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 55,000. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and 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 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: 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 2,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 6. 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 DRC judge 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: __________________________________ Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives