The case involves a dispute between K.F.C. Germinal Beerschot Antwerpen (Germinal), a Belgian football club, and Club Atlético Chacarita Juniors (Chacarita), an Argentine football club, concerning agreements related to the transfer and loan of a player, as well as a consulting agreement. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on 23 December 2011, addressing whether FIFA had jurisdiction under Article 22(f) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The dispute stemmed from a 2006 loan agreement for player G., which included an option for Germinal to purchase 80% of the player’s rights for €600,000. In 2007, the clubs signed a transfer agreement for 100% of the player’s rights for €300,000 and a consulting agreement worth €260,000, which included scouting services and youth academy investments. Germinal paid both amounts but later claimed Chacarita failed to fulfill its obligations under the consulting agreement, leading to its termination in 2008 and a demand for a €260,000 refund.
The central legal issue was FIFA’s jurisdiction, as the dispute involved multiple contracts, including a transfer agreement and a consulting agreement. The CAS panel ruled that FIFA could assess the real nature of the transactions, even if some contracts were not directly related to player transfers. The panel also addressed the concept of simulation, where parties conceal their true intentions behind a contract. It found that the consulting agreement was a simulated act intended to mask the true transfer-related transaction, as the parties did not genuinely intend to establish a consulting relationship. The panel concluded that the real agreement involved a transfer fee of €560,000 plus an additional 20% fee in case of a future transfer, which was valid under Swiss law.
Chacarita filed a claim with FIFA in 2008, seeking 20% of the transfer fee from Germinal to Trabzonspor, which amounted to €460,000. FIFA’s Single Judge ruled in favor of Chacarita in 2011, ordering Germinal to pay the amount plus interest. Germinal appealed to CAS, challenging FIFA’s jurisdiction and seeking reimbursement of the €260,000. The CAS panel upheld FIFA’s decision, affirming its jurisdiction and rejecting Germinal’s claims. The panel found that Germinal failed to prove Chacarita’s breach of the consulting agreement, as there was no evidence of written instructions or requests for scouting trips. The termination of the agreement was deemed unjustified, and Germinal’s counterclaim for reimbursement was dismissed.
The final award reinforced FIFA’s authority in transfer-related disputes and highlighted the importance of contractual transparency. Germinal was ordered to pay Chacarita €460,000 plus 5% annual interest, while all other claims were dismissed. The ruling underscored the binding nature of contractual obligations in player transfers, regardless of ancillary disagreements, and emphasized the need for parties to adhere to their true intentions in contractual agreements. The case serves as a precedent for resolving disputes involving interconnected agreements in football transfers.