The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on February 7, 2007, in the dispute between ADO Den Haag and Newcastle United FC concerning training compensation for a player who moved from the Dutch club to the English club. The case centered on whether Den Haag was entitled to compensation under FIFA’s Transfer Regulations, specifically Article 6, paragraph 3 of Annex 4, which governs transfers within the EU/EEA. The player had been registered as an amateur with Den Haag from 1996 to 2005 before signing his first professional contract with Newcastle United in July 2005. Den Haag claimed it was owed compensation, but the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially rejected the claim, arguing that Den Haag had not formally offered the player a professional contract and thus could not justify entitlement.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Massimo Coccia, Mr. Manfred Peter Nan, and Mr. Michael Beloff QC, addressed two key issues: whether Article 6, paragraph 3 applied to amateur players signing their first professional contract, and whether Den Haag could justify its entitlement to compensation. The panel confirmed that the rule applies to both amateur and professional players, emphasizing its purpose to penalize clubs that show no genuine interest in retaining a player. It clarified that an amateur agreement, while binding, does not constitute a "contract" under FIFA’s regulations. The panel interpreted the justification requirement as an "exception to the exception," meaning a training club could still claim compensation if it demonstrated a bona fide interest in retaining the player for future professional opportunities. However, Den Haag initially failed to provide sufficient evidence of such intent, as it had not made a formal contract offer before the player’s move.
In a subsequent phase of the case, the panel revisited Den Haag’s claim and found persuasive evidence of the club’s genuine interest in retaining the player. Den Haag presented a letter dated April 30, 2005, expressing its intent to keep the player in its training program for the 2005-2006 season. Additionally, negotiations for a professional contract, though not formalized, and the player’s high assessment within the club’s youth system substantiated Den Haag’s claim. The Dutch FA confirmed compliance with national regulations, which did not require registered mail for such notices. The panel concluded that Den Haag had justified its entitlement to training compensation under Article 6(3), reversing the DRC’s earlier decision.
Den Haag requested EUR 220,000 in training compensation, an amount Newcastle United acknowledged as correct if compensation was deemed due. The panel ruled in favor of Den Haag, ordering Newcastle United to pay the specified sum. The CAS upheld Den Haag’s appeal, reversing the DRC’s decision and confirming Den Haag’s entitlement to compensation for its role in the player’s development. The ruling underscores the importance of clubs actively demonstrating their interest in retaining players to claim training compensation while balancing players’ freedom to move without undue restrictions. The decision also highlights the need for clear adherence to regulatory language and the principles of legal interpretation.