F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 15 July 2016

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 July 2016,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman

Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member

Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member

Mario Gallavotti (Italy), 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

Training compensation in connection with the Player E

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 29 May 1992, was registered with the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) as a professional as of 8 January 2013 until 31 May 2013. Furthermore, the aforementioned player passport indicated “no record found” for the period as of 1 June 2013 until 1 September 2013.

2. The relevant sporting season in country B ran from January until December.

3. Furthermore, 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) on 12 September 2013.

4. Moreover, according to TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 of UEFA) at the time the player was registered with it.

5. On 30 September 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training compensation, on the ground of the subsequent registration of the player as a professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 11,753.42 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 October 2013.

6. In its response to the claim, the Respondent declared that the player and the Respondent itself mutually “decided not to register the player with the Football Association of country D” and that the player “has never played” for the Respondent. For this purpose, the Respondent attached a list of its official matches with the players that participated for the relevant season.

7. In this regard, the Respondent sustained that nor the Claimant, nor the player passport provided in the claim, could prove that the player was registered with the Respondent.

8. Additionally, the Respondent highlighted that “the mere fact that the player has been issued with an ITC does not constitute a registration” and, in this regard, provided a communication signed by the Player Registration and TMS officer of the Football Association of country D on 29 January 2016 “confirming that the player was never registered” with the Respondent.

9. The Respondent further asserted that in order to be registered with a club from country D within the Football Association of country D, there are specific forms

Training compensation in connection with the Player E that need to be presented in front of the latter and that those were not presented in this specific registration.

10. Based on the above-mentioned, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.

11. In its replica, the Claimant refuted the Respondent’s arguments. In particular, the Claimant remarked that the player’s ITC was requested by the Respondent and issued by the Football Association of country B “at the request of the Football Association of country D”. Moreover, the Claimant affirmed that “the issuance of a player’s ITC automatically leads to his immediate registration with the club requesting his registration”.

12. Despite being invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent did not submit its final comments regarding the claim.

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, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 September 2015. Consequently, the 2015 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 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 2016), 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, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 12 September 2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

Training compensation in connection with the Player E

4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the DRC started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation 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 the Chamber considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. Equally, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.

5. First of all, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 11,753.42, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent, i.e. between clubs of two different associations, before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

6. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the claim should be rejected since the player was never registered with the Football Association of country D nor ever played for the Respondent. Consequently, the Respondent was of the opinion that no training compensation is payable to the Claimant.

7. In continuation, after having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Chamber observed that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was indeed registered with the Respondent on 12 September 2013.

8. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

9. Consequently, the Chamber highlighted that, according to the documentation on file and submitted by the Respondent, the Respondent had not presented any conclusive documentary evidence which could corroborate the absence of the player’s registration with the Football Association of country D and therefore could not conclude that the Claimant is not entitled to the training compensation arising from the player’s registration with the Respondent.

10. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber referred to the argument of the Respondent whereby the latter stated that the player did not play any game

Training compensation in connection with the Player E with it and recalled that, according to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, it is not of importance, for the entitlement to training compensation, in how many games a player actively takes part as long as such player is registered with the relevant club.

11. Having established the above, the DRC referred to the rules applicable to 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.

12. Reverting to the facts of the matter at hand, and based on the documentation provided by the Football Association of country B and the information contained in TMS, the members of the Chamber concluded that it could indeed be established that the player had been registered with the Claimant as from 8 January 2013 until 31 May 2013 as a professional.

13. In view of the previous considerations, the DRC concluded that the Claimant is entitled to training compensation in view of the player’s transfer between clubs of two different associations and that the Respondent shall pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

14. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 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.

15. In continuation, the DRC concurred that the player, born 29 May 1992, was registered with the Claimant as from 8 January 2013 until 31 May 2013 as a professional.

16. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 8 January 2013 until 31 May 2013, i.e. for 5 months of the season of the player’s 21st birthday.

Training compensation in connection with the Player E

17. Moreover, the members of the Chamber observed that according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, i.e. on 12 September 2013.

18. Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned considerations as well as the amount claimed by the Claimant, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 11,753.42 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.

19. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC 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 13 October 2013, until the date of effective payment.

20. 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.

21. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 11,753.42 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the members of the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).

22. As a result, considering the degree of success, the DRC determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000 which shall be borne by the Respondent.

Training compensation in connection with the Player E

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 11,753.42 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 13 October 2013 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 by the Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

Training compensation in connection with the Player E

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. 58 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

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

__________________________________

Marco Villiger

Deputy Secretary General

Encl. CAS directives