The case involves a dispute between Aston Villa FC and B.93 Copenhagen concerning training compensation for a player, M., who transferred from B.93 to Aston Villa in 2003. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) addressed several legal issues in its award dated 28 May 2007, focusing on whether Aston Villa was obligated to pay training compensation to B.93 under FIFA regulations. The panel clarified that a claim for training compensation does not require specific submission to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) to be valid, as the DRC and the Players’ Status Committee (PSC) are functionally equivalent under FIFA rules. It also noted that procedural flaws in prior proceedings, such as violations of the right to be heard, could be remedied during the CAS appeal process, which allows for a full review of facts and law.
The classification of M.'s status was central to the dispute. The panel ruled that FIFA regulations distinguish players solely as either amateur or non-amateur based on whether they receive remuneration beyond actual football-related expenses. The existence of an employment contract or the club's benefit from the player’s services was deemed irrelevant. M., who received a weekly scholarship allowance from Aston Villa, was classified as a non-amateur player, entitling B.93 to training compensation. Aston Villa argued that compensation should only be paid upon M. signing a professional contract, but the panel rejected this, stating that only clubs with existing contracts must offer new ones to secure compensation rights.
B.93 initially claimed EUR 70,833 in training compensation, which Aston Villa acknowledged but deferred payment until M. turned 18. FIFA later ordered Aston Villa to pay the amount immediately, prompting the club to appeal to CAS. The panel upheld B.93’s entitlement to compensation but noted that CAS could not adjust the amount, as neither party contested the calculation during proceedings. The decision reinforced FIFA’s regulatory approach to training compensation and clarified procedural and substantive aspects of such disputes.
The case also addressed whether B.93 had offered M. a contract, a requirement under FIFA rules for entitlement to compensation. Aston Villa argued that B.93 failed to demonstrate such an offer, but the panel rejected this, citing CAS interpretations that only clubs with existing contracts must offer new ones. The panel upheld the DRC’s calculation of compensation, which was based on FIFA Circulars 769 and 826, outlining costs for different age categories and club tiers. Although the DRC had initially miscalculated the compensation, the panel found no grounds for further adjustments, as B.93 did not submit a counterclaim or additional evidence.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Aston Villa’s appeal, affirming the DRC’s decision and ordering the club to pay B.93 EUR 41,666, plus 5% annual interest from December 4, 2006, until payment was made. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to FIFA’s classification criteria for player status and the procedural avenues available for resolving disputes under its framework. The case highlights the complexities of training compensation in football and the enforceability of such obligations under FIFA regulations.