The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on June 18, 2009, in a dispute between Grasshopper Club Zürich and Club Alianza Lima regarding training compensation for a Peruvian player. The case centered on whether Grasshopper owed Alianza Lima compensation for training the player, who moved from Alianza Lima to Grasshopper in 2007. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Mr. Michele Bernasconi, and Mr. Pedro Tomás Marqués, addressed several legal issues, including the definition of a "decision" under CAS rules, the relationship between FIFA regulations and Swiss law, and the calculation of training compensation.
The panel clarified that a letter from FIFA qualifies as a "decision" subject to CAS appeal if it is a unilateral act intended to produce legal effects, even if it lacks detailed reasoning. It also ruled that Swiss law applies subsidiarily to FIFA regulations, filling gaps where FIFA rules are silent. The panel emphasized the autonomy of sports federations in establishing their own rules, provided they align with higher-ranking norms like FIFA statutes. Procedurally, the panel noted that parties must request a reasoned decision within 10 days to preserve their right to appeal, a requirement deemed proportionate for ensuring legal certainty.
On the substantive issue of training compensation, the panel ruled that compensation is calculated based on the time a player was effectively trained by a club, excluding loan periods unless the loaning club proves it bore training costs. The panel upheld the general rule that compensation is due until a player turns 21 unless evidence shows training ended earlier. Factors such as salary, transfer value, and national team participation may influence this determination. In this case, the panel found insufficient evidence to conclude the player's training ended before age 21, applying the standard calculation period.
Grasshopper argued the compensation was disproportionately high, citing lower training costs in Peru, but the panel upheld FIFA's system, which aims to promote youth development and solidarity among clubs. Grasshopper also claimed the system restricted player mobility, but the panel rejected this, noting FIFA's balance between free movement and fair compensation for training clubs. The panel confirmed the Dispute Resolution Chamber's calculation of €305,000 in training compensation, dismissing Grasshopper's appeal. Alianza Lima's counterclaim for earlier interest payments was rejected due to procedural non-compliance.
The case underscores the interplay between procedural rigor, legal certainty, and the autonomy of sports federations. It highlights the importance of adhering to deadlines and formal requirements in appeals while affirming FIFA's framework for training compensation as a tool to support youth development in football. The panel's decision reinforces the principle that sports regulations must balance individual rights with the collective interests of the sport.