The case involves a dispute over the international transfer of a minor football player, E., from Bosnia and Herzegovina to the German club OFC Kickers Offenbach. FIFA denied the transfer request, citing violations of Article 19 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which generally prohibits the international transfer of minors except under specific exceptions. The player sought an exception under Article 19 para. 2 RSTP, claiming non-football-related reasons, specifically for educational purposes. FIFA rejected this request, leading to an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS addressed procedural and substantive issues. On procedure, it confirmed the appeal was timely, as the 21-day deadline began the day after the player and his club received the full grounds of FIFA’s decision on February 11, 2011, making the February 16 filing admissible. The CAS also affirmed the player’s standing to appeal, as he was directly affected by the decision.
On the merits, the CAS interpreted Article 19 para. 2 RSTP strictly. It ruled that the term "parents" does not extend to other relatives, such as an aunt, even if the minor resides with them, disqualifying the player’s living arrangement from qualifying under this exception. The CAS also examined Article 19 para. 2(b) RSTP, which permits minor transfers within the EU or EEA under exceptional circumstances. Since Bosnia and Herzegovina is neither an EU nor EEA member, this provision did not apply, nor could it be extended by analogy through the Stabilization and Association Agreement between the EU and Bosnia, as the agreement lacks provisions on free movement.
The CAS emphasized that Article 19 RSTP aims to prevent the exploitation of minors and must be applied strictly to avoid circumvention. While the player’s move to Germany was for educational reasons, the CAS upheld FIFA’s decision, noting that broadening exceptions beyond those explicitly stated could undermine the rule’s protective purpose. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the restrictive interpretation of Article 19 RSTP and its territorial limitations.
The case highlights the tension between protecting minors and accommodating exceptional circumstances, with the CAS prioritizing strict adherence to FIFA’s regulatory framework. The panel acknowledged the player’s educational motives but concluded that the temporary restriction on his professional play until he turned 18 did not constitute undue hardship. The ruling ensures the player could continue training and education, with the deferral of an international transfer certificate being only a temporary measure. The decision underscores the importance of safeguarding minors in football while maintaining the integrity of transfer regulations.
Ultimately, the CAS rejected all requests for relief, confirming FIFA’s original decision and dismissing the appeal. The case serves as a precedent for the strict application of Article 19 RSTP, balancing individual circumstances with the broader need to protect young players from exploitation in international transfers.