The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on December 6, 2011, in the dispute between Stoke City F.C. and Brescia Calcio S.p.A. regarding training compensation for a player who transferred from Stoke City to Brescia. The case centered on whether Stoke City had met the formal requirements under FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), specifically Article 6, paragraph 3 of Annex 4, which governs training compensation for players moving within the EU/EEA. The panel, composed of Mr. Chris Georghiades, Mr. Bernhard Welten, and Mr. Michele Bernasconi, emphasized that Swiss law governs the interpretation of these rules, requiring clarity in wording and purpose, with historical context considered only when the rule is unclear.
Stoke City claimed it had made three contract offers to the player—on March 14, March 21, and May 16, 2007—but the player ultimately signed with Brescia. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) had previously ruled that Stoke City failed to meet the formal requirements, as the offers were either sent to the player’s agent rather than the player directly or lacked proper evidence of delivery via registered mail. The CAS panel clarified that Article 6, paragraph 3 applies to both professional and amateur players within the EU/EEA, with stricter formal requirements for professionals. The rule mandates that a training club must offer a written contract to the player at least 60 days before the current contract expires, sent via registered mail. The panel interpreted "in writing" under Swiss law, ensuring uniformity in international transfers, and ruled that the registered mail requirement serves as evidence rather than a validity condition, meaning failure to use registered mail does not automatically invalidate the offer if other proof exists.
However, the panel upheld the DRC’s decision, finding that Stoke City’s offers did not comply with the formal requirements. The first two offers were sent to the agent, not the player, and the third, though addressed to the player, lacked sufficient proof of delivery. Consequently, Stoke City was not entitled to training compensation. The ruling reinforced the importance of strict adherence to procedural formalities in player transfers, particularly within the EU/EEA framework. The decision underscores the balance between protecting training clubs' interests and ensuring legal certainty in international football transfers.
In a subsequent appeal, Stoke City argued that the DRC erred in fact and law, seeking annulment or replacement of the decision and compensation of either €240,000 or €160,000, plus interest. Brescia requested the appeal be dismissed, arguing that Stoke City had not made a legally binding offer and that strict compliance with FIFA regulations was necessary. The CAS panel found that Stoke City had made two written offers to the player at least sixty days before his contract expired, both of which were of equal or greater value than his existing contract. The panel rejected Brescia’s argument that the offers were invalid because they were not sent via registered mail, ruling that the requirement for registered mail was for evidentiary purposes only and could be satisfied by other means. The panel concluded that Stoke City was entitled to training compensation of €160,000, as Brescia was a UEFA Category 2 club, and ordered Brescia to pay the compensation plus 5% annual interest from 24 August 2007. The appeal was upheld, and all other requests were dismissed.
The case highlights the complexities of player transfers, contractual obligations, and the role of agents in such disputes. It underscores the tension between formal regulatory requirements and broader principles of fairness in sports disputes, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural formalities while allowing flexibility in how evidence of contract offers is provided. The decision reinforces the importance of clarity and consistency in interpreting FIFA regulations to ensure equitable outcomes in international football transfers.