The document outlines a complex dispute involving Le Mans Union Club 72, Club Olympique de Bamako, and Djoliba Athletic Club, centered on the transfer of a Malian football player, referred to as A., from Djoliba to Le Mans in 2007. The case primarily concerns whether the player was an amateur or professional during his time with Bamako and Djoliba, which determines the financial obligations of the clubs involved. Bamako sought training compensation from Le Mans, claiming the player was an amateur during his eight seasons with them, while Le Mans argued he was a professional and refused payment. The dispute was initially brought before FIFA's Player Status Committee and later referred to the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in March 2009 that the player was an amateur and ordered Le Mans to pay Bamako €480,000 in training compensation. The DRC's decision did not address Djoliba's involvement or Le Mans' claims against them.
Le Mans appealed the DRC's decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on July 1, 2009, arguing that Djoliba should be included in the proceedings due to the interconnected nature of the dispute. Le Mans contended that if the player was an amateur, Djoliba had deceived them and should reimburse the €400,000 transfer fee. Conversely, if the player was professional, Bamako would only be entitled to a solidarity contribution. Djoliba resisted forced participation, asserting that the facts were clear enough for the CAS to rule without their involvement and preferred to preserve their right to a separate legal process. Bamako opposed Djoliba's inclusion, arguing that their dispute with Le Mans did not involve Djoliba.
The CAS proceedings, handled by a sole arbitrator, focused on procedural issues, particularly whether Djoliba could be validly involved as a respondent. The arbitrator ruled that under the procedural rules of the DRC, a party cannot be compelled to join the case unless explicitly requested by the claimant in a clear manner. Since Le Mans did not formally request Djoliba's participation until after the proceedings had closed, the attempt to involve them was deemed invalid. The arbitrator also noted that neither FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players nor the procedural rules allow for forced intervention by a third party in such disputes. While the CAS procedural code permits third-party involvement in ordinary arbitration, it only allows respondents, not appellants, to bring in additional parties.
The arbitrator emphasized procedural fairness, stating that parties must clearly state their claims and objections during the initial stages of proceedings. Le Mans' failure to do so meant Djoliba could not be validly included as a respondent. The decision also highlighted that Djoliba had explicitly refused to participate, further preventing their forced involvement. The ruling focused on procedural validity rather than the substantive merits of the case, leaving the underlying dispute unresolved. The arbitrator noted that Le Mans could pursue separate claims against Djoliba in a pending FIFA proceeding, which could be suspended pending the CAS decision.
The partial award of February 15, 2010, declared Le Mans' appeal admissible but ruled against Djoliba's forced participation in the CAS proceedings. The arbitrator underscored the importance of clear procedural requests and adherence to jurisdictional rules, refusing to join Djoliba to the current procedure to avoid depriving them of a two-tiered judicial process. The costs of the partial award were deferred to the main proceedings, and the continuation of the procedure was reserved. The case highlights the complexities of player status disputes in football transfers and the procedural challenges in arbitration, particularly concerning the inclusion of third parties and the interplay between different judicial bodies like FIFA and CAS. The final outcome will depend on further proceedings to resolve the substantive issues of the player's status and the associated financial obligations.