The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on February 15, 2011, in a complex contractual dispute involving SASP Le Havre Athletic Club (HAC), Association Le Havre Athletic Club, FIFA, player Matthias Lepiller, and Fiorentina AC (ACF). The case centered on the validity of contracts between Lepiller and HAC, as well as the associated training compensation owed to HAC after Lepiller joined Fiorentina. The tribunal, composed of Dirk-Reiner Martens, Olivier Carrard, and José Juan Pinto, examined multiple legal issues, including jurisdiction, contractual interpretation, and training compensation under FIFA regulations.
The CAS affirmed its authority to review the case under Article R57 of the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration, though its jurisdiction was limited to the scope of FIFA's contested decision. The tribunal recognized the dual legal structure of French football clubs, where HAC's sports association and professional company operated as a joint entity, granting both standing in the case. A key issue was the interpretation of Article 17 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which applies only to breaches of written professional contracts providing remuneration exceeding a player’s expenses. The CAS clarified that this provision enforces contracts during their validity but does not bind players indefinitely, rejecting arguments that this violated the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
The dispute arose from Lepiller’s contractual history with HAC, which included a 2003 training agreement and an aspirant player contract. An extension of the latter was denied by the French Football League (LFP) in 2004 for violating FIFA rules prohibiting contracts exceeding three years for minors. HAC and Lepiller then signed a "career plan contract" in 2004, committing him to a future five-year professional contract starting in 2006. The CAS ruled this agreement invalid, as it circumvented FIFA’s age-based restrictions. The tribunal also distinguished between training and professional contracts under French law, noting that while training agreements can persist after player contracts end, Lepiller’s training agreement did not qualify as a professional contract under FIFA rules due to insufficient remuneration.
HAC claimed Lepiller breached an "elite player contract" negotiated in 2006, but the CAS found no formal agreement, as Lepiller never explicitly accepted the terms and instead joined Fiorentina. The tribunal dismissed HAC’s argument that silence implied consent, emphasizing the lack of mutual agreement. Consequently, the CAS upheld FIFA’s finding that no valid professional contract existed between Lepiller and HAC after June 2006, meaning Article 17 RSTP did not apply.
Regarding training compensation, the CAS adjusted FIFA’s initial calculation, ruling HAC was entitled to €310,000—€10,000 per season for ages 12–15 and €90,000 per season for ages 16–18—rather than the €272,500 initially awarded. Fiorentina had already paid €312,292.47 (including interest), so no additional payment was ordered. The tribunal confirmed interest accrued from October 30, 2006, 30 days after FIFA approved Lepiller’s provisional registration with Fiorentina.
The CAS partially upheld HAC’s appeal, affirming its right to the corrected training compensation but dismissing further claims. The ruling reinforced the limits of contractual enforcement for minors and clarified the distinction between training and professional agreements in football, ensuring compliance with FIFA’s regulatory framework. The decision underscored the importance of clear, enforceable contracts and adherence to jurisdictional boundaries in resolving sports disputes.