The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on April 11, 2014, in the case between FC Italia Nyon and player D. against the Amateur League (LA) of the Swiss Football Association (ASF), ASF, and FC Crans. The dispute centered on the legality of training compensation fees imposed on amateur players, particularly juniors, under ASF regulations. The tribunal, led by Prof. Ulrich Haas, addressed several key legal principles, including the necessity of a sufficient legal basis for regulations, the protection of personality rights under Swiss law, and the proportionality of restrictions on player mobility.
The tribunal emphasized that for a ruling to be lawful, it must rest on a clear legal foundation, such as federation regulations, which must be accessible to members. The ASF argued that publishing regulation changes on its website was sufficient, but the tribunal found no evidence of a customary practice obliging members to check the website for updates. Without proper notification, the appellants could not be bound by the new rules. The tribunal also examined the concept of customary law in private regulations, noting its strict proof requirements due to legal certainty principles.
A central issue was the infringement of personality rights under Articles 27 and 28 of the Swiss Civil Code (CC), which protect individuals from excessive personal commitments and unlawful restrictions on their freedoms. The tribunal highlighted the importance of sports for amateur and youth players, both educationally and socially, and recognized that clubs also possess personality rights, albeit limited to non-human-specific attributes. The contested decision and regulations were found to violate these rights by imposing financial burdens on FC Italia Nyon, potentially leading to insolvency, and restricting players' freedom to join their preferred teams. The tribunal rejected arguments comparing training compensation to employment contracts, noting amateur players are not remunerated and participate for leisure.
The tribunal also assessed whether overriding interests could justify the infringement, concluding that the existing system of training compensation for professional players already addressed youth development incentives. An additional system for amateur players was deemed unnecessary and disproportionate, as it unjustly restricted players' rights without compelling justification. The tribunal referenced the European Court of Justice's "Bernard" case, which upheld training compensation for professionals but did not extend it to amateurs.
Procedurally, the tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction based on the parties' arbitration agreement and addressed admissibility issues, including the timeliness of appeals and the inclusion of D. as an appellant. It rejected the ASF's passive legitimacy challenge, noting the association's implicit acceptance of its role by signing the agreement. The tribunal annulled the contested decision, declaring it null and void, and suggested alternative regulatory approaches, such as transitional periods for player transfers, to balance competitive fairness with individual rights.
The ruling underscored the tension between regulatory authority and fundamental freedoms in amateur sports, emphasizing the need for clarity, proportionality, and respect for personality rights. By invalidating the training compensation system for amateur players, the tribunal affirmed the primacy of individual liberties over unjustified financial and regulatory burdens in youth football. The case set a precedent for safeguarding amateur athletes' rights while encouraging clubs to invest in player development without imposing undue restrictions.