The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on April 27, 2012, in a dispute between Genoa Cricket FC S.p.A. and Sports Club Corinthians Paulista concerning training compensation for a football player. The case revolved around whether Corinthians was entitled to training compensation for the player, who had been registered with them on loan and later definitively transferred. The panel, consisting of Lars Hilliger, José Juan Pinto, and Rui Botica Santos, addressed several key legal issues. The panel ruled that a training club is entitled to compensation for the period the player was registered with it, even if the player was on loan, unless the loaning club can prove it bore the training costs during the loan. Training compensation is only due upon a definitive transfer, excluding loan periods. The panel also found that if a transfer agreement includes financial obligations, training compensation is presumed to be part of the agreed compensation unless explicitly excluded. However, the new club must prove that any payment made by the player or a third party to the former club was intended as transfer compensation. In this case, since the payment was made by a company on behalf of another entity and not directly by Genoa, Corinthians could not assume training compensation had been paid. The panel outlined factors to determine whether a player’s training period was completed before age 21, such as regular performance for the club’s first team, salary, transfer value, public notoriety, captaincy, or national team inclusion. Genoa argued the player had completed his training by age 18, citing his established professional status, but the panel did not conclusively rule on this point. The panel noted the trend of young players signing professional contracts early, often with penalty clauses reflecting clubs' financial ambitions rather than the player’s actual value. The factual background revealed that the player was registered with Corinthians on loan (2002–2003) and later definitively (2003–2008), with a loan to Paulista FC (2005–2006). In 2008, he transferred to Genoa, prompting Corinthians to claim training compensation. Genoa argued the player was a free agent and that a prior payment covered contract termination, not training compensation. Corinthians countered that the payment came from a third party for economic rights, not from Genoa, and thus training compensation remained unpaid. The panel’s decision emphasized the importance of clear payment attribution in transfer agreements and the conditions under which training compensation applies, particularly regarding loans and third-party payments. The case highlights the complexities of football transfers, training compensation, and contractual obligations in youth player development. The panel ultimately upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decision, ordering Genoa to pay EUR 345,000 plus interest, dismissing Genoa's appeal and affirming the standard training compensation calculation for players aged 12 to 21. The ruling underscored the need for concrete evidence to substantiate claims when disputing standard training compensation periods.