The case revolves around a complex dispute involving S.C. Fotbal Club CFR 1907 Cluj SA (FC Cluj), the Romanian Football Federation (RFF), and Sporting Club Association F.C. Viorel Mateianu (FC Viorel) concerning a football player transfer agreement and subsequent financial obligations. The initial transfer agreement, dated 3 March 2007, involved FC Baia Mare and FC Viorel, stipulating that FC Baia Mare would pay FC Viorel 50% of any future transfer fee received for the player. On 6 July 2009, FC Baia Mare transferred the player to FC Cluj for €40,000, with an additional €100,000 contingent on the player's participation in more than 10 matches. FC Cluj paid the initial €40,000 but later claimed that an agreement dated 23 October 2009 with FC Baia Mare released them from further obligations in exchange for another player. FC Viorel, however, argued that on 1 June 2010, FC Baia Mare assigned its debt of €70,000 (50% of the transfer fee) to them.
FC Viorel filed a claim with the RFF's National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC), seeking €70,000 from FC Cluj. The NDRD dismissed the claim, but the RFF Board for Appeal overturned this decision, ordering FC Cluj to pay €50,000 to FC Viorel. FC Cluj appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the additional agreement with FC Baia Mare nullified any further claims and that FC Viorel lacked legal standing to demand payment. The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Hendrik Willem Kesler, ruled that FC Cluj had provided sufficient evidence to validate the 23 October 2009 agreement, including its registration with the RFF and witness testimonies. Consequently, the arbitrator found the agreement valid, meaning no debt existed between FC Cluj and FC Baia Mare, rendering the debt assignment to FC Viorel null and void.
The arbitrator also emphasized that FC Viorel, as a non-contractual third party, had no legal basis to claim payment directly from FC Cluj without a valid debt assignment. The CAS annulled the RFF Board for Appeal's decision, ruling that FC Cluj owed nothing to FC Viorel and that the latter lacked legal standing to enforce the claim. The decision underscored the importance of contractual validity and the necessity of proper legal foundations for third-party claims in football transfer disputes. The case highlights the principle that parties must substantiate their claims with clear evidence to uphold agreements and assignments in sports-related financial disputes. The final ruling upheld FC Cluj's appeal, set aside the RFF's prior decision, and ordered the return of a €50,000 security deposit to FC Cluj, dismissing all other claims. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities in football transfer agreements and the critical role of evidence in resolving such disputes.