The case involves a dispute between Portuguese football club CD Nacional and Montenegrin club FK Sutjeska over training compensation for a player who transferred from Sutjeska to Nacional. The player, V., had been registered with Sutjeska since 2000 and signed his first professional contract in 2008. In 2010, the contract was mutually terminated, and the player subsequently signed with Nacional. Sutjeska claimed training compensation of EUR 340,000, later adjusted to EUR 335,000 by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in August 2011. Nacional missed the 10-day deadline to request the grounds for the decision, rendering it final and binding. Nacional appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the transfer should not be considered a contract-period transfer, that no compensation was due since the player was already a professional, and that he was unemployed when signing with Nacional.
The CAS panel examined the compatibility of Article 15 of the FIFA Procedural Rules, which stipulates that a decision becomes final if grounds are not requested within 10 days, with fundamental legal principles. The panel found the rule compatible, as it serves a legitimate purpose and aligns with international football practices. It also noted the rule does not contradict FIFA Statutes, as the 21-day appeal deadline effectively extends once grounds are requested. The panel emphasized that association rules should be interpreted based on the rulemakers' intent or an objective understanding in good faith.
On the merits, the panel upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, confirming Nacional’s liability for training compensation. It rejected Nacional’s arguments, stating the player’s professional status did not exempt Nacional from payment and that the mutual termination did not negate the obligation. The panel also dismissed procedural objections, ruling the 10-day deadline was valid and Nacional’s failure to comply rendered the decision final.
The CAS dismissed Nacional’s appeal, upheld the EUR 335,000 award to Sutjeska, and ordered Nacional to bear arbitration costs. The decision reinforced the enforceability of FIFA’s procedural rules and clarified training compensation obligations in player transfers. The case highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and the interplay between FIFA’s regulations and Swiss law, given FIFA’s domicile in Switzerland. The panel’s analysis considered prior CAS jurisprudence, FIFA’s intent in streamlining dispute resolution, and the widespread acceptance of Article 15 within the football community.
Ultimately, the ruling underscored that parties must strictly follow procedural requirements to preserve their appeal rights. The panel acknowledged FIFA’s efforts to clarify its rules but found no grounds to overturn the decision due to Nacional’s non-compliance. The case serves as a precedent for the interpretation of training compensation and procedural rules in international football disputes.