The case involves a complex legal dispute between Trabzonspor SK, a Turkish football club, and Sporting Clube de Portugal, a Portuguese football club, over compensation for the training and development of player Jean-Jacques Missé Missé under FIFA regulations. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which issued an award on 28 April 2008. The CAS panel examined several key issues, including the jurisdiction of FIFA's Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (PSC), the submission of claims for compensation, and the application of mandatory rules under Swiss law. The panel recognized the customary jurisdiction of the Single Judge, noting FIFA's established practice, even if not explicitly stated in its bylaws. It also clarified that any communication to FIFA seeking a decision on compensation sufficed to meet submission requirements under Article 16 of the 1994 FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The tribunal emphasized the freedom of parties to derogate from mandatory Swiss law provisions under Article 187 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), though public policy rules would prevail.
A central issue was whether Article 27(2) of the Swiss Civil Code (CC), which protects economic independence, applied as a rule of international public policy. The CAS concluded that this provision extended to international cases and found FIFA's compensation system for training and development problematic due to its lack of predictability and precision. This unpredictability violated the economic independence safeguarded by Article 27(2) CC, rendering Article 14(1) of the RSTP (1994) null and void. The dispute arose from the player's contract with Sporting, which was terminated early, leading to his subsequent signing with Trabzonspor. FIFA had authorized the player to join another club but reserved the right to determine compensation. Trabzonspor faced difficulties obtaining the player's International Transfer Certificate, prompting FIFA's intervention. The CAS ultimately ruled that the compensation system under FIFA's regulations was incompatible with Swiss public policy, highlighting the need for clearer guidelines to ensure fairness and legal certainty.
The case also involved jurisdictional conflicts and procedural disputes. Sporting initially claimed $5,000,000 from Trabzonspor, which contested FIFA's jurisdiction. The Single Judge of the PSC ruled in 2006 that the 1994 FIFA transfer regulations applied and asserted jurisdiction, leaving the indemnity issue unresolved. Trabzonspor appealed to CAS, which partially upheld the appeal in 2005, referring the indemnity question back to FIFA. The proceedings resumed before the PSC, but the final resolution remained pending. The CAS Panel later upheld the jurisdiction of the Single Judge, recognizing FIFA's customary practice and the subsequent formalization of this authority in the 2005 Procedural Rules. It also found that Sporting had timely submitted its claim to FIFA, dismissing Trabzonspor's arguments to the contrary.
The Panel addressed the applicability of Article 14(1) of the RSTP (1994), which Trabzonspor argued was null and void, citing a 2004 decision by the Commercial Court of Zurich. The Zurich court had ruled that Article 14(1) of the RSTP (1997) excessively limited competition and violated Swiss and European laws. The Panel acknowledged the complexity of applying domestic mandatory rules in international arbitration but did not definitively resolve the issue, leaving open the question of whether such tribunals must adhere to the same standards as state courts. The Panel upheld the validity of Sporting's claim under the RSTP (1994) and dismissed Trabzonspor's arguments regarding the nullity of Article 14(1), emphasizing the distinct legal context of international arbitration.
The case highlights the evolution of FIFA's RSTP, particularly the differences between the 1994 and 2005 versions regarding contractual stability and compensation. The 2001 and 2005 regulations introduced clearer provisions for compensation in cases of contract breaches, ensuring legal certainty. In contrast, the 1994 regulations lacked such detailed provisions, particularly concerning training compensation, which was deemed contrary to Swiss law. The Panel ruled that Sporting had no valid claim against Trabzonspor for compensation related to the player's training and development, upholding Trabzonspor's appeal and setting aside FIFA's earlier decision. The ruling concluded by rejecting all further claims from the parties involved, reinforcing the principle that arbitral tribunals must consider public policy