The case involves a dispute between Greek football club Panionios and Egyptian club Al-Ahly over training compensation for a player who moved from Al-Ahly to Panionios in 2005. The player, an Egyptian national, was trained by Al-Ahly as an amateur from 1998 to 2005 before signing his first professional contract with Panionios. Al-Ahly filed a complaint with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee in 2006, seeking €400,000 in training compensation. In 2009, FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) awarded Al-Ahly €268,333, prompting Panionios to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Panionios argued that Al-Ahly had waived its right to compensation by releasing the player as a free agent and failing to provide documentation within FIFA’s 18-month deadline. They also contested the DRC’s calculation, claiming it relied on undisclosed evidence. Al-Ahly countered that the appeal was late and the DRC’s decision should stand.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from the UK, Cyprus, and Egypt, reviewed the case de novo, examining both factual and legal aspects. It emphasized that clubs signing free agents must obtain clear, written waivers from previous clubs explicitly relinquishing training compensation rights. The panel noted that procedural fairness complaints before the DRC are redundant under established CAS jurisprudence. While the parties initially agreed to forgo a hearing, Panionios later requested one, but the panel deemed written submissions sufficient after attempts to clarify testimony from the player’s agent were refused. The applicable law was determined to be FIFA regulations, supplemented by Swiss law, as no specific framework was agreed upon.
The panel addressed key questions, including whether Al-Ahly notified Panionios within the 18-month deadline, whether the player’s contract warranted compensation, and whether Al-Ahly had waived its entitlement. It found Al-Ahly complied by contacting FIFA within seven months of the contract signing and confirmed compensation was due since the player signed professionally before turning 23. The panel rejected Panionios’ waiver argument, citing insufficient evidence and emphasizing the need for written confirmation. It also dismissed Panionios’ claim of prejudice due to undisclosed information, noting the data was accessible through their federation.
Regarding the compensation amount, the panel upheld the DRC’s calculation of €268,333, based on the player’s training history and club categories. It referenced prior CAS decisions to stress the importance of due diligence in verifying claims and obtaining explicit waivers. Ultimately, the panel ruled in favor of Al-Ahly, affirming its entitlement to compensation and dismissing Panionios’ appeal. The decision underscores the necessity for clubs to adhere to procedural requirements and properly document waivers to avoid disputes. The CAS upheld the DRC’s original decision, reinforcing the obligations of clubs in training compensation cases.