The case revolves around a dispute between MTK Budapest and FC Internazionale Milano (Inter) concerning training compensation for a player, F., who moved from MTK to Inter via Pieta Hotspurs, a Maltese club. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed three main issues: the admissibility of late-produced documents, the entitlement to training compensation, and its calculation. The panel emphasized the importance of fair play and sporting justice, allowing discretion to admit late documents if they contribute to factual clarity. It ruled that training clubs deserve compensation even without formal contract offers, provided they justify their claims, with stricter standards for professionals than amateurs.
F. was registered with MTK as an amateur from ages 15 to 18. Negotiations for a direct transfer to Inter in 2006 failed, and F. was briefly transferred to Pieta Hotspurs before joining Inter. MTK argued this was a sham to avoid higher compensation, as Inter would owe more if F. came directly from MTK (Category 2) rather than Pieta Hotspurs (Category 3). Inter paid Pieta Hotspurs €90,000 but nothing to MTK, which sought €273,452, alleging rule circumvention. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber initially dismissed MTK's claim due to lack of evidence of a contract offer, a requirement under FIFA regulations.
On appeal, the CAS panel considered broader principles, noting MTK's significant investment in F.'s development and his subsequent success, including captaining Hungary's under-19 team. While MTK failed to provide timely evidence of a contract offer, the panel ruled that denying compensation would undermine fair play. It referenced past CAS decisions affirming that clubs can claim compensation without formal offers if they demonstrate genuine interest in retaining the player. The panel calculated compensation at €160,000 but reduced it by 10% due to MTK's delayed evidence submission, awarding €144,000.
The decision aligns with Advocate-General Sharpston's opinion in the Olivier Bernard case, supporting FIFA's training compensation provisions. The panel stressed that overly formalistic interpretations of FIFA regulations could distort their purpose, emphasizing the need to balance regulatory compliance with equitable treatment. It dismissed other claims and counterclaims, upholding MTK's appeal partially. The ruling underscores the importance of compensating clubs for youth development while ensuring fairness in player transfers, adhering to both FIFA rules and broader legal principles. The case highlights the tension between regulatory formalities and the spirit of sporting justice, ultimately favoring the latter.