The case revolves around a dispute between IFK Norrköping, a Swedish football club, and Trinité Sports FC, a French amateur club, along with the French Football Federation (FFF), concerning training compensation for a player who moved from Trinité to Norrköping. The player, registered as an amateur with Trinité from 1992-1993 until 1999-2000 and again in 2004-2005, signed an employment agreement with Norrköping in March 2005. The agreement included conditions such as Trinité’s consent to the transfer, medical approval, and registration with the football federation. Despite these conditions, Norrköping obtained an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) from the FFF and registered the player, treating the agreement as valid. However, Norrköping later terminated the contract in June 2005, citing a unilateral cancellation clause.
Trinité filed a complaint with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), claiming €60,000 in training compensation, arguing that the player’s first professional contract with Norrköping triggered this right under FIFA rules. The DRC ruled in Trinité’s favor, ordering Norrköping to pay the compensation. Norrköping appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contending that the employment agreement never took effect due to unmet conditions, particularly Trinité’s consent, and thus no compensation was owed. Alternatively, Norrköping sought a reduced amount.
The CAS, through Sole Arbitrator Prof. Massimo Coccia, upheld the DRC’s decision. It ruled that Norrköping’s actions—requesting the ITC and registering the player—demonstrated it had treated the agreement as valid, estopping it from later denying its enforceability. The CAS emphasized that training compensation arises from FIFA rules, not private agreements, and serves to reward clubs for developing young players. Absent clear evidence of Trinité waiving this right, the claim stood. The CAS also noted that the duration of the player’s contract with Norrköping was irrelevant under FIFA’s 2001 Transfer Regulations, which mandate compensation upon signing a first professional contract.
Norrköping further argued that the player was not an amateur at Trinité and relied on verbal assurances from the player’s agent that Trinité would not seek compensation. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed these claims, finding no evidence of non-amateur status and ruling that verbal assurances could not override FIFA’s rules. Only a written waiver from Trinité would have sufficed, which Norrköping failed to obtain. The compensation was calculated based on the player’s training years (ages 12–23), with Trinité entitled to €10,000 per year for early seasons and €20,000 for the later season, totaling €60,000. Norrköping was also ordered to pay 5% annual interest if the amount remained unpaid 30 days after the DRC’s decision.
The CAS dismissed Norrköping’s appeal, affirming the €60,000 payment plus interest, reinforcing the principle that clubs cannot avoid training compensation by later disputing a contract they initially treated as binding. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to FIFA’s regulations and contractual obligations in player transfers, ensuring fair compensation for clubs that invest in youth development.