The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on December 12, 2008, in a dispute between VfB Admira Wacker Modling, an Austrian football club, and A.C. Pistoiese s.p.A., an Italian football club, concerning training compensation for a player transferred between the two clubs. The case centered on whether Admira Wacker was entitled to compensation for training the player, who moved to Pistoiese after his contract expired. The CAS panel, composed of Stuart C. McInnes, Prof. Massimo Coccia, and Mr. Goetz Eilers, focused on interpreting FIFA regulations, particularly Article 6(3) of Annex 4 to the 2005 FIFA Transfer Regulations, which governs training compensation for intra-EU/EEA transfers. The panel emphasized that its role was to apply, not revise, FIFA rules, guided by Swiss law principles requiring interpretation based on wording and purpose.
Admira Wacker claimed €300,000 in training compensation, arguing it had trained the player from ages 6 to 21, including a professional contract from ages 17 to 21. However, Pistoiese contended that Admira Wacker failed to meet the 60-day written offer requirement under Article 6(3), disqualifying the claim. Admira Wacker presented an affidavit and a draft contract with handwritten notes as evidence, but the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled these insufficient, as they lacked the player’s signature or formal proof of delivery. The CAS panel upheld the DRC’s decision, noting that professional clubs must adhere to strict formal requirements, and Admira Wacker’s evidence did not satisfy the "in writing" standard under Swiss law.
The case highlighted the challenges clubs face in documenting contract offers and the importance of clear, independent evidence in disputes over training compensation. Admira Wacker appealed to CAS, submitting additional evidence, including a new affidavit and a press article quoting the coach, but the panel found this insufficient to overturn the DRC’s ruling. The player testified that he never received a written offer and moved to Pistoiese for career advancement. The panel concluded that Admira Wacker failed to justify its entitlement to compensation under the "exception to the exception" clause in Article 6(3), which allows claims only if the training club demonstrates genuine efforts to retain the player.
The ruling reinforced the necessity of formal compliance in contractual matters within football’s regulatory framework, particularly for professional players. The panel dismissed the appeal, confirming the DRC’s decision and denying all other requests for relief. The case underscored the procedural rigor of CAS arbitration and set a precedent for similar disputes, emphasizing the balance between clubs’ interests in training compensation and players’ career mobility. The outcome clarified that strict adherence to formal requirements is essential for validating claims under FIFA’s transfer regulations.