The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case 2010/A/2069 involved a dispute between Turkish football club Galatasaray A.S. and German club Aachener TSV Alemannia F.C. regarding training compensation for a player, T. The central issue was whether the player had a professional or amateur status when he moved from Aachen to Galatasaray, which would determine Aachen's entitlement to compensation under FIFA regulations. The player had been registered as an amateur by Aachen from 2002 to 2007 before being released in June 2007. In January 2008, Galatasaray signed him to a contract labeled as a "Professional Football Contract," which included a taxable salary, though the player only participated in youth and reserve matches. Aachen claimed €180,000 in training compensation, arguing the player had turned professional upon signing with Galatasaray, while Galatasaray contested this, asserting his amateur status due to minimal wages and participation in amateur-level competitions.
The CAS panel, composed of Rui Botica Santos, Efraim Barak, and Goetz Eilers, ruled that the player's professional status was determined by the contractual terms, not just registration or playing level. The contract's wording, salary, and tax obligations indicated a professional agreement, and since Turkey is not an EU/EEA member, Galatasaray could not benefit from exemptions applicable to intra-EU/EEA transfers. The panel upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's (DRC) earlier decision, which had partially granted Aachen's claim, ordering Galatasaray to pay €150,000 in training compensation. This sum was calculated based on FIFA's training cost categories: €30,000 for the player's training between ages 13 and 15 (€10,000 per season) and €120,000 for ages 16 and 17 (€60,000 per season, reflecting Galatasaray's category II status). The CAS also confirmed that the appeal was timely filed, dismissing Galatasaray's arguments about the player's amateur status and the validity of Aachen's release letter.
Galatasaray further argued that FIFA's regulations discriminated against non-EU/EEA clubs, but the panel deemed this beyond the case's scope, stating such concerns should be addressed by FIFA's governing bodies. The ruling reinforced the principle that contractual terms, including salary and tax obligations, are critical in determining a player's professional status, even if their actual playing time suggests otherwise. The CAS dismissed Galatasaray's appeal entirely, affirming the FIFA DRC's decision and ordering Galatasaray to pay the stipulated compensation, plus 5% annual interest for late payment and additional costs. The case underscored the importance of clear contractual language and adherence to FIFA's regulatory framework in player transfer disputes, particularly regarding training compensation for clubs that develop young players.