The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) resolved a dispute between Anorthosis Famagusta FC and PAE Panathinaikos FC concerning training compensation for a player transferred in 2006. Panathinaikos sought compensation under Article 20 of the 2005 FIFA Transfer Regulations, claiming Famagusta owed payment for the player's training during his time with Panathinaikos. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of Panathinaikos, ordering Famagusta to pay €105,000. Famagusta appealed to CAS, challenging the decision on several legal grounds. The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, examined key issues, including whether Famagusta introduced new arguments during the hearing and whether Panathinaikos complied with the EU/EEA exception rule. This rule requires a training club to offer a professional player a new contract in writing via registered mail at least 60 days before the current contract expires. The panel found Panathinaikos failed to meet this requirement, as its renewal notice was not sent via registered mail within the stipulated timeframe. Additionally, the panel ruled that the unilateral renewal clause in the player’s contract was irrelevant to the training compensation claim, as the contract had expired before the clause took effect. The panel emphasized that any disputes about the contract’s validity or breach were separate matters and did not affect the training compensation issue.
The case background revealed the player had been with Panathinaikos as an amateur from 2000 to 2004 before signing his first professional contract in 2004, which included a unilateral renewal clause. Negotiations for a new contract in 2006 failed, and Panathinaikos attempted to unilaterally renew the contract, but the player joined Famagusta instead. Famagusta’s contract included a clause stating the player would bear any training compensation claims, but the DRC ruled Famagusta was liable. The CAS panel overturned this decision, ruling Panathinaikos was not entitled to compensation due to its failure to comply with the EU/EEA exception requirements. The panel highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural rules and clarified the limited relevance of unilateral renewal options in such disputes.
The DRC had dismissed Famagusta’s argument about a prior provisional decision, awarding Panathinaikos €105,000 based on the player’s amateur years and the 2005 Transfer Regulations. Famagusta appealed to CAS, which confirmed its jurisdiction under FIFA Statutes and the CAS Code, applying FIFA regulations and Swiss law. The panel rejected Famagusta’s attempt to introduce a new argument during the hearing, noting the claim was filed within the two-year limit under Article 25 of the 2005 Transfer Regulations. The panel also emphasized its authority to review facts and law comprehensively, referencing FIFA rules on training compensation, particularly Articles 20 and Annex 4 of the 2005 Transfer Regulations. These rules stipulate compensation is payable when a player signs his first professional contract or is transferred before age 23, with exceptions for cases where the former club fails to offer a contract under specific conditions.
The ruling underscored the strict application of FIFA regulations, noting Panathinaikos did not meet the requirement to send a written contract offer via registered mail at least 60 days before the contract’s expiration. The panel found no extraordinary circumstances justifying an exception, affirming that failure to comply with Article 6 para 3 of Annex 4 automatically disqualifies a club from claiming compensation. The panel referenced prior CAS rulings to affirm its role in applying, not revising, the rules. Ultimately, the CAS upheld Famagusta’s appeal, reversed the DRC’s decision, and ruled Panathinaikos was not entitled to training compensation, dismissing all other requests by the parties. The final ruling emphasized procedural rigor and adherence to contractual and regulatory requirements in sports disputes.