The case involves a dispute between FC Metz and FC Ferencvarosi over training compensation for a player who moved from FC Ferencvarosi to FC Metz. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, comprising Prof. Ulrich Haas, Mr. Jean-Philippe Rochat, and Mr. Gyula Dávid, issued an award on 14 May 2007. The central legal issues included the prohibition of retrospective rules, the applicable regulations for determining training compensation, and the impact of failing to offer a contract to the player. The panel emphasized that FIFA, as a monopoly federation, must adhere to general legal principles, including the prohibition of retrospective rules, similar to state legislators. The applicable regulations were determined by analogy to R58 of the Code, focusing on the closest connection to the case facts. The panel noted that while the failure to offer a contract is a factor in calculating training compensation, it does not automatically nullify the claim. The burden of proof for demonstrating an offer lies with the club seeking compensation.
FC Ferencvarosi argued it had made offers to the player, but FC Metz contested the formal validity of these offers under the 2005 regulations, which were not in force at the time. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled that the 2005 regulations applied but acknowledged Ferencvarosi could not be held to formal requirements that were not yet in effect. The CAS panel upheld this reasoning, stressing that retroactive application of rules is impermissible. The case highlights the balance between protecting training clubs' rights and ensuring fair application of regulations, considering factors like the player's training history and negotiations between parties. The decision clarifies that formal requirements cannot be imposed retroactively and that training compensation calculations must account for contextual factors, including the club's efforts to retain the player.
The DRC initially ruled that Ferencvarosi was entitled to compensation, despite not fully complying with the formal requirements of the 2005 Regulations, as these were not in force when the offer was made. The DRC presumed the player received an equivalent offer based on his acknowledgment and ordered FC Metz to pay €435,000 within 30 days, with potential disciplinary actions and interest for non-compliance. FC Metz appealed to CAS, challenging the DRC's decision and arguing no training compensation was due. The CAS examined whether the 2001 or 2005 Regulations applied, noting the dispute's complexity due to the player's move occurring after the 2005 Regulations came into force, while the training and offer occurred earlier. The panel determined that neither the original nor the modified 2005 Regulations applied straightforwardly, underscoring the complexity of transitional provisions in sports regulations.
The panel concluded that neither Article 26(2) of the RSTP 2005 nor its modified version could be applied retroactively, as this would violate the prohibition against retrospective rules, a principle rooted in Swiss law. The panel ruled that the RSTP 2001, in force when the player was trained and the alleged offer was made, governed the dispute. Subsidiary questions about applicable state law were addressed, with Swiss private international law applying due to the absence of an explicit choice by the parties and the CAS's location in Switzerland. The panel interpreted Article 5(5) of the RSTP 2001, clarifying that the absence of a contract offer is a factor in calculating compensation but not an absolute condition for claiming it.
The CAS panel acknowledged FC Ferencvarosi's successful training of the player, who later played for national teams and top-tier clubs. However, the panel criticized Ferencvarosi for lacking written evidence of a binding contract offer, deeming this unprofessional. While oral discussions about contract renewal were noted, they were insufficient under regulatory requirements. The player's preference to move abroad mitigated the reduction in compensation, and FC Metz was faulted for not clarifying training compensation conditions before signing the player. Balancing these factors, the panel reduced the compensation by 30%, setting the final amount at EUR 304,500. The decision upheld the DRC's ruling on interest, mandating a 5% annual rate from December 22, 2006, if payment was delayed. The CAS partially upheld FC Metz's appeal, reforming the DRC's decision to require payment of EUR 304,500 plus interest. The ruling underscores the importance of formal documentation in contract negotiations and the discretionary power of adjudicative bodies