The case involves a dispute between Club Atlético Boca Juniors (Boca) and Genoa Cricket and Football Club S.p.A (Genoa) over the international transfer of a minor football player, F., who held dual Italian and Argentine nationality. F. had initially signed a contract with Boca in September 2005, set to expire in June 2006 but with a clause allowing Boca to extend it twice for one year each. Boca claimed to have exercised this extension by sending a telegram to F. in May 2006. However, F. subsequently signed a three-year contract with Genoa in July 2006, countersigned by his parents as he was a minor. The Argentine Football Association refused to issue an International Transfer Certificate, citing F.'s ongoing contract with Boca, leading FIFA's Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee to rule in August 2006 that Genoa could provisionally register F. The judge questioned the enforceability of Boca’s unilateral extension clause, referencing FIFA and CAS precedents that such clauses often violate trade restrictions. He noted formal deficiencies in the contract, such as the lack of bold formatting near F.'s signature, which Swiss law required for validity. The decision emphasized it was provisional and did not prejudge Boca’s potential compensation claims.
Boca appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the Single Judge erred in assuming F. was not notified of the extension. The CAS panel clarified that the decision was based on the contract’s formal flaws, not just notification issues. It upheld its jurisdiction under FIFA statutes and the CAS Code, applying FIFA regulations primarily and Swiss law subsidiarily. The panel dismissed Boca’s appeal, affirming the provisional registration. It rejected the Single Judge’s reliance on an external legal opinion but agreed with the outcome, stressing that minors cannot be forced to fulfill personal service contracts against their will, especially when relocation and family separation are involved. The ruling left the substantive dispute unresolved, allowing Boca to pursue compensation separately. The case highlights legal and ethical complexities in international transfers of minors, particularly regarding contractual formalities and the balance between club rights and player welfare. The CAS ultimately upheld the FIFA Single Judge’s decision, dismissing Boca’s appeal.